Understanding Bell Inequality Proof: Explained from a Probability Perspective

[PeterDonis]

you cannot forbid the minimal statistical interpretation to be discussed in this subforum.

Nobody has done so. You can say you are describing what the minimal statistical interpretation says, and then do so, as much as you want, provided it is relevant to the thread. For example, it would not be relevant in a thread about the MWI, since the subforum guidelines also say that in any particular thread that is about a particular interpretation, that interpretation should be used.

If you forbid a discussion about why you follow the one but not the other interpretation, then you don't need to discuss interpretations at all.

Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to discuss what an interpretation says without discussing why you prefer it. And it is certainly possible to discuss what an interpretation says without mentioning any other interpretation, let alone saying that other interpretations besides your preferred one are wrong, misguided, etc.

 

[vanhees71]

But it must at least be allowed to criticize wrong conclusions about the physics facts from any interpretation (or interpretation of an interpration ;-)). To figure out what the theory says about the physics all you need is the probabilistic interpretation of the state. In that sense it's always the minimal interpretation. This doesn't mean that any interpretation may be considered right or wrong, but one should be clear about what the theory says about objective physical facts, and if the one or the other interpretation leads to wrong conclusions about these, it must be allowed to criticize this interpretation.

 

[PeterDonis]

it must at least be allowed to criticize wrong conclusions about the physics facts from any interpretation

No. If you are going to point out a wrong conclusion about physics facts--experimentally confirmed predictions--you can do that without using an interpretation at all. And that's what you should do. The physics facts are interpretation independent, so they should be discussed in an interpretation independent way.

if the one or the other interpretation leads to wrong conclusions about these

No interpretation can lead to wrong conclusions about physics facts, because all interpretations use the same math and the same set of physics facts. The physics facts are inputs to the interpretation, not outputs.

 

[DrChinese]

No. If you are going to point out a wrong conclusion about physics facts--experimentally confirmed predictions--you can do that without using an interpretation at all. And that's what you should do. The physics facts are interpretation independent, so they should be discussed in an interpretation independent way.

No interpretation can lead to wrong conclusions about physics facts, because all interpretations use the same math and the same set of physics facts. The physics facts are inputs to the interpretation, not outputs.

I agree with this. But it certainly seems as if every interpretation adds at least one extra hypothesis* to existing the (rapidly progressing) canon of physics facts. So there's an extra input coming in somewhere that - I assume - should at least attempt to be consistent with the agreed "physics facts" as inputs. (Not sure how to label that extra input.)

My experience has been where an interpretation's "extra hypothesis" appears to conflict with the "physics facts", the supporters of that interpretation begin hand-waving in some form of denial. And one doesn't even need to call their beliefs an "interpretation" to see this. (A lot of people hold on to locality, for instance, while also holding on to some form of cause-and-effect a/k/a determinism. That doesn't even pass a "Bell test".)*For Bohmians, it's the existence of a "pilot wave" (which is magically "inaccessible" to us). For Many Worlds, it's the existence of all those worlds/branches (which are magically "inaccessible" to us). Etc.

 

[PeterDonis]

it certainly seems as if every interpretation adds at least one extra hypothesis* to existing the (rapidly progressing) canon of physics facts

Yes, but the extra hypothesis is by definition not testable. If it were testable, that would mean the model was making a different prediction from standard QM, in which case it wouldn't be an interpretation of QM, it would be a different theory. (An example would be the GRW stochastic collapse model.) Being not testable, it is therefore impossible for such an extra hypothesis to contradict the physics facts (if it did, again, it would be testable and we would have a different theory, which would be falsified by the physics facts).

A lot of people hold on to locality, for instance, while also holding on to some form of cause-and-effect a/k/a determinism.

Perhaps, but AFAIK there is no recognized QM interpretation in the literature that is based on this claim. Bear in mind that, at least as far as this subforum is concerned, "QM interpretation" is narrower than "stuff various people believe about QM". Discussion is supposed to be limited to recognized interpretations in the literature.

 

[vanhees71]

Then define clearly what you mean by "interpretation", if not what "various people believe about QM". Also to agree or not to agree any such additional metaphysical assumption that's not empirically testable can only be a personal opinion. It's also hard to understand what you consider as "interpretation independent", if it's not the minimal statistical interpretation which simply only uses what's needed to apply the mathematical formalism to describe the observational facts without additional metaphysical interpretations.

 

[DrChinese]

Perhaps, but AFAIK there is no recognized QM interpretation in the literature that is based on this claim.

MWI: Deterministic and Local

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.4222.pdf
Vaidman (2014): "It is argued that ontic interpretations of the quantum wave function provide simpler
and clearer physical explanation and that the many-worlds interpretation is the most attractive
since it provides a deterministic and local theory for our physical Universe explaining the illusion of
randomness and nonlocality in the world we experience."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ (also Vaidman)

https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#faq (see Q12 & Q13, and yes, it's old)

---

Note: I would include "Superdeterminism" if there were such an interpretation. But there really isn't, just the claim that such an interpretation could be created that was both local and deterministic.

 

[PeterDonis]

Then define clearly what you mean by "interpretation", if not what "various people believe about QM".

Read the guidelines for this subforum.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

 

[PeterDonis]

After moderator review, the thread will remain closed. The original question has been addressed. Thanks to all who participated.