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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Violation of λ-independence would imply the possibility of superluminal signaling in empirically adequate models of the EPR/B experiment.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42