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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If λ-distribution held, superluminal signaling would be possible in principle

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.λ-distribution requires controlling the hidden variable distribution across ensembles, but hidden variables are by definition inaccessible to experimental manipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A signaling protocol that depends on controlling inaccessible parameters is not 'possible in principle' in any operationally meaningful sense—it is nomologically impossible given the theory's own constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, even granting λ-distribution, the inference to superluminal signaling conflates logical possibility with physical possibility within the theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Tim Maudlin and others distinguish between parameter dependence and outcome dependence: only parameter dependence, not outcome dependence, enables signaling regardless of ensemble structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bell correlations in standard quantum mechanics exhibit outcome dependence but not parameter dependence, so introducing λ-distribution restores local outcome correlations without introducing parameter dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without parameter dependence, no manipulation of local settings translates into a controllable statistical difference at the distant wing, undermining P3 of the supporting argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If λ-distribution held, it would be possible in theory to arrange ensembles of particle pairs in which controllable probabilistic dependence would not be washed out
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If controllable probabilistic dependence is not washed out in such ensembles, the statistics of distant outcomes would depend on a nearby controllable factor
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dependence of distant outcome statistics on a nearby controllable factor constitutes superluminal signaling
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.