Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If (3) were unrestrictedly true, it would explain why (2)... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The hidden variable proponent is not committed to requirement (3) holding unrestrictedly.

    If (3) were unrestrictedly true, it would explain why (2) holds in the presence of hidden values.

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Connections

    2 topics

    Skepticism3 linkedTruth & Knowledge

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked

    Related

    Requiring the HV proponent to accept this explanation is an implausible restrict...The hidden variable proponent is not committed to requirement (3) holding unrest...Von Neumann apparently thought the HV proponent is committed to this explanation...

    Similar

    Von Neumann's condition (3) cannot, in general, be satisfied by hidden...78%The hidden variable proponent is not committed to requirement (3) hold...77%For incompatible observables, hidden variable interpretations need onl...74%X,A ⊢ B expresses that B holds in any possibility where A is true, not...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: kochen-specker
    View source passageHide passage
    The example illustrates why von Neumann’s argument is unsatisfying. Nobody disputes the move from (2) to (3) for compatible observables, i.e. those which, according to QM, are jointly measurable in one arrangement. The above choice of A, B, C, however, is such that any two of them are incompatible, i.e. are not jointly observable. For these we will not want to require any HV interpretation to meet (3), but only (2). The hidden values need not conform with (3) in general, only the averages of the

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective