"If one asks what is characteristic of the realm
of physical ideas independently of the quantum theory, then above
all the following attracts our attention: the concepts
of physics refer to a real external world, i.e., ideas are posited
of things that claim a "real existence'' independent of
the perceiving subject (bodies, fields, etc.). . . . Moreover,
it is characteristic of these physical things that they are conceived
of as being arranged in a space-time continuum. Further, it appears
to be essential for this arrangement of the things introduced
in physics that, at a specificc time, these things
claim an existence independent of one another, insofar as these
things ''lie in different parts of space.'' Without such an
assumption of the mutually independent existence (the "being-thus")
of spatially distant things, an assumption which originates in
everyday thought, physical thought in the sense familiar to us
would not he possible. Nor does one see how physical laws
could be formulated and tested without such a clean separation.
Field theory has carried out this principle to the extreme, in
that it localizes within infinitely small (four-dimensional)
space-elements the elemen-tary things existing independently
of one another that it takes as basic, as well as the elementary
laws it postulates for them." Albert Einstein, 'QuantenMechanik
Wirklichkeit,' 1948, Dialectica 2: 320-324. Doug's
Why did Jon P. Jarrett say this about Einstein's
world view as naive and local realism?:
"I previously alluded to an irony. It is this:
Einstein's own worldview, whatever is to be included in a properly
detailed characterization of it, surely falls within the bounds
of local realism; and yet, the class of experiments which provide
the context for Bell's theorem consists of modified versions
of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Gedankenexperiment;
and these experiments, whose results not only violate Bell-type
inequalities, but do so in excellent accord with the predictions
of quantum mechanics, provide the evidence which tells against
local realism." (Using 'local' Jarrett implies 'naØve.'
Our brackets. Our link to our critical review of EPR.)
Jon P. Jarrett
in his paper entitled,
'Bell's Theorem: A Guide to the Implications,'
quoted from pp. 61-2 of
Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory
. . .
In EPR Einstein claims there are only two values
for probability: true or false.
Blatantly that remark about probability is
Einstein's naive and local dialectic fubarring big time.
Just one more quote from EPR: more major fubarring:
"A comprehensive definition of reality is, however,
unnecessary for our purpose. We shall be satisfied with the following
criterion, which we regard as reasonable. If, without in any
way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty
(i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of
a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical
reality corresponding to this physical quantity. It seems
to us that this criterion, ~whileq~ far from exhausting
all possible ways of recognizing a physical reality, at least
provides us with one such way, whenever the conditions set down
in it occur. Regarded not as a necessary, but merely as a sufficient,
condition of reality, this criterion is in agreement with classical
as well as quantum-mechanical ideas of reality."
Einstein is using naive scalarbation to reify reality
and impose meta-state-ic formal mechanics on reality.
Einstein denies real metabolismq.
Einstein: a major dumbass.
Quantum~Reality Disturbs Itself - Doug
Doug - 9Feb2019.