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
    The hidden variable proponent is not committed to require... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If (3) were unrestrictedly true, it would explain why (2) holds in the presence of hidden values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Von Neumann apparently thought the HV proponent is committed to this explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring the HV proponent to accept this explanation is an implausible restriction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Topics

    SkepticismCausation

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    If (3) were unrestrictedly true, it would explain why (2) holds in the presence ...Requiring the HV proponent to accept this explanation is an implausible restrict...Von Neumann apparently thought the HV proponent is committed to this explanation...

    Similar

    If (3) were unrestrictedly true, it would explain why (2) holds in the...77%Von Neumann's argument against hidden variables is unsatisfying.76%Von Neumann's argument requires hidden variable interpretations to sat...75%For incompatible observables, hidden variable interpretations need onl...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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