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
    Violation of λ-independence would imply the possibility o... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Violation of λ-independence would imply the possibility of superluminal signaling in empirically adequate models of the EPR/B experiment.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In any empirically adequate model of the EPR/B experiment where the pair's state and measurement apparatus settings are the only relevant factors for outcome probabilities, and the quantum-equilibrium distribution is λ-independent, parameter independence implies the failure of controllable probabilistic dependence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If λ-independence failed, a change in the setting of the nearby measurement apparatus would cause a change in the distribution of states λ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A change in the distribution of states λ would induce a change in the statistics of the distant (space-like separated) measurement outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.λ-independence violations confined to retrocausal or atemporal hidden-variable structures need not permit agents to exploit correlations for signaling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Price and Wharton's retrocausal models show λ-independence can fail via backward causation while signal locality is preserved, since no controllable intervention exploits the correlation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from probabilistic dependence on λ-distribution to superluminal signaling illicitly assumes agent-controllability of the hidden-variable preparation, which retrocausal models deny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Valentini's sub-quantum-equilibrium argument shows superluminal signaling follows only when quantum-equilibrium fails, not merely when λ-independence fails.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In Bohmian mechanics, λ-independence violations are masked by the equilibrium distribution, so empirically adequate models can violate λ-independence without enabling any detectable nonlocal signal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Causation

    Related

    A change in the distribution of states λ would induce a change in the statistics...If λ-independence failed, a change in the setting of the nearby measurement appa...In Bohmian mechanics, λ-independence violations are masked by the equilibrium di...In any empirically adequate model of the EPR/B experiment where the pair's state...
    +4 moreShow less
    Price and Wharton's retrocausal models show λ-independence can fail via backward...The inference from probabilistic dependence on λ-distribution to superluminal si...Valentini's sub-quantum-equilibrium argument shows superluminal signaling follow...λ-independence violations confined to retrocausal or atemporal hidden-variable s...

    Similar

    In models that permit violation of λ-independence, superluminal signal...91%The necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling dif...90%In models that do not exclude violations of λ-independence, controllab...88%If λ-distribution held, superluminal signaling would be possible in pr...86%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: qm-action-distance
    View source passageHide passage
    Note that the necessary and sufficient conditions for superluminal signaling are different in models that do not exclude in theory the violation of λ-independence. In such models controllable probabilistic dependence is not a necessary condition for superluminal signaling. The reasoning is as follows. Consider any empirically adequate model of the EPR/B experiment in which the pair's state and the settings of the measurement apparatuses are the only relevant factors for the probabilities of meas
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit