- #141
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,177
- 1,913
Lynch101 said:I think we're still talking past each other here. I'm not advocating the idea that a more complete specification of the system is possible. I can understand that a more complete specification might even be impossible in principle. But that we cannot have a more complete specification of the system doesn't mean that the specification we have is a complete specification of that system.
I guess I dispute your idea that we DON'T have a complete specification of the system. If we agree no greater detail is possible, we're done. And the reason we feel there is no greater detail possible is because it would lead to statistical contradictions. The property is fully blurred prior to measurement, and has no preferred value or basis that is in any way related to the outcome of a specific future measurement.
What CAN be said, for an entangled system, is that there is a conservation rule at play in that system. Such that A+B=k or A-B=k (k being some constant or initial value).
Of course, some interpretations say more detail exists, but it is unknowable in principle. So if you are tilting in that direction, all is good.