From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Jun  9 10:07:27 EDT 1992
Article 6119 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics (no AI here, sorry)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.205930.18680@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1992Jun4.201614.10240@oracorp.com> <1992Jun5.165532.26362@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 92 20:59:30 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <1992Jun5.165532.26362@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>Here is an alternate
>hypothesis.  The state of a particle, when it is emitted, consists of
>a definite yes-no answer for each angle (not a hidden single axis of
>polarization -- Bell's argument does kill this).  Each of these
>answers is diametrically opposed as between the two electrons.  The
>answers vis-a-vis two angles for a given one of the two electrons are
>correlated probabilistically in the appropriate degree determined by
>the angle.  This kind of hidden state, decided at the source, not by
>random events with space-like separation at the detectors, will
>exhibit the exact behaviour seen in the Mermin experiment and does not
>involve non-locality.

This simply doesn't work.  The hypothesis that the state of each
particle carries a definite yes-no answer for each angle (or even
a definite probability for each angle) is inconsistent with the
experimental results -- unless, of course, we allow action at
a distance.  Try reading Mermin's paper again.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


