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 naasking on Thursday July 22, 2021 @10:28AM (#27919271)

> When the simulator shows a previously unseen object, it must first simulate all its history accounting for all effects to ensure that the shown state is legit and doesn't expose the conspiracy

The simulation only needs to produce observations that are consistent with the knowledge of the first observer. Sometimes bit even that, as I describe in the blog post, because eyewitness testimony is known to be quite unreliable.

I'm not sure what sort of history you're thinking of specifically.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by GoblinSlayer on Friday July 23, 2021 @03:01AM (#27927980)

Existence of Neptune was conjectured before it was observed, the testimony came from instruments. If such consistency with contemporary observers was used, scientific revolutions wouldn't happen as observers would never observe what contradicts their knowledge.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by naasking on Friday July 23, 2021 @10:17AM (#27930910)

I agree, there are necessarily some background facts that must be consistent with the environment. Science might eventually be able to trace the trajectory of the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, but that doesn't necessarily mean you would need to simulate every asteroid in the solar system since its initial formation.

The amount of information science could infer on many questions is strictly bounded and in those cases we could only reason stochastically. The data presented at time of first observation can then be generated randomly from the set of answers consistent with what's already known.

[ Parent | on HN ]