How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by IncRnd on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:08PM (#27901150)

> The generally means that adding unneeded hypotheses should generally be avoided.

This is the logical fallacy with what you wrote. You don't know what is needed or unneeded.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by joe_the_user on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @09:27PM (#27901270)

None of my arguments here have been classical syllogisms and so none of my arguments can be "logical fallacies". Your not responding to the meaning of my informal statements in a rather transparently bad faith manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by IncRnd on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @11:10PM (#27901937)

Please stop trying to win a debate. You haven't actually addressed what I or anyone else wrote. If you want people to discuss with you, understand they expect you to do the same.

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on poor or faulty logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by joe_the_user on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @11:29PM (#27902037)

Please stop trying to win a debate.

Lol, it seems clear you are the one setting up a debate and attempting to win it. I actually am working on the implications of the "simulation" argument. All of my positions are based "plausible reasoning" with similarities to formal logic being only incidental.

[ Parent | on HN ]