gill1109 wrote:Michel, you will never understand Heinera and my points, because you will never study my proofs of *extensions* of Bell’s results. You also refuse to think about Heinera’s urn model or look at my simulations of the urn model. These things (my martingale theory, the urn model, simulations thereof) are related.

Your work is related to your work. Color me surprised. The same misconceptions carry on from beginning to end. Misconceptions about physics. It's like Bell was talking about you when he said:

Bell: Then in 1932 [mathematician] John von Neumann gave a "rigorous" mathematical

proof stating that you couldn't find a non-statistical theory that would give the same

predictions as quantum mechanics. That Von Neumann proof in itself is one that must

someday be the subject of a Ph.D. thesis for a history student. Its reception was quite

remarkable. The literature is full of respectful references to "the brilliant proof of Von

Neumann;" but I do hot believe it could have been read at that time by more than

two or three people.

Omni: Why is that?

Bell: The physicists didn't want to be bothered with the idea that maybe quantum

theory is only provisional. A horn of plenty had been spilled before them, and every

physicist could find something to apply quantum mechanics to. They were pleased

to think that this great mathematician had shown it was so. Yet the Von Neumann

if you actually come to grips with it, in your hands! There is nothing to it. It's not just flawed,

it's silly. If you look at the assumptions made, it does not hold up for a moment.

It's the work of a mathematician, and he makes assumptions that have a mathematical symmetry to them.

When you translate them into terms of physical disposition, they're nonsense.

You may quote me on that: The proof of Von Neumann is not merely false but foolish

Richard wrote:The probabilistic extensions of the CHSH inequality were designed to bring Bell’s ideas closer to applications

Translation: Bell's ideas were divorced from reality.

Richard wrote:These applications have been successful!

That's the claim of a mathematician. Once you translate that into terms of physical disposition, it's nonsense.

Richard wrote:The probabilistic bounds have been further refined and are used now routinely by experimentalists.

Translation: Bell's work was divorced from reality. What kind of "theorem" needs to be refined for experiments? Reminds me of epicycles.

Richard wrote:Jan-Åke Larsson and I have extended Bell’s work to allow for detection and coincidence loopholes.

Translation: Bell's work had loopholes and was divorced from reality.

Richard wrote:Experimentalists are now able to avoid those loopholes entirely.

That's the claim of a mathematician. Once you translate that into terms of physical disposition, it's nonsense.

If you can’t read the theory because you don’t know enough probability theory, look at my simulation code instead. Run it, play with it. Ask questions about it. Make your own Python code of the CHSH urn model.

I know enough probability theory to point out errors in your work that you didn't even realize were there. You know what I'm talking about. No sane person goes on the internet and picks "random nobodies who don't understand probability theory" to write articles about. Besides, you have no clue what I know and don't know. I will decide what I program or don't program, your patronizing attitude is stale already.