From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Tue Jun  9 10:07:57 EDT 1992
Article 6160 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics (no AI here, sorry)
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.145427.5239@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 92 14:54:27 GMT
References: <1992Jun4.201614.10240@oracorp.com> <1992Jun5.165532.26362@guinness.idbsu.edu> <1992Jun5.205930.18680@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Lines: 41
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal

In article <1992Jun5.205930.18680@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>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.

I think it works.  The point is that the relationship between the
various yes-or-no answers is not what you expect in a hidden-variables
theory.  (This is not a hidden variables theory of the type refuted by
the experiments being discussed).  But let's stay off this topic on
this list.



>
>-- 
>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."


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


