John Clark wrote:
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net> Wrote:
> > for boxes A, B, C, and D, box A has the same relationship
> >with B as it does with C and D, depending on their respective
> >settings. But that is what generates the paradox.
>
> I don't think that that's quite the right word, almost by definition
> "paradox" is something that can never happen and this sort of thing
> happens all the time, but it certainly is weird.
No, I meant "paradox" as in "something that can never happen". But, as
I said, the four-box case doesn't matter anyway...
> > Quantum effects - "spooky action at a distance" - have been
> >demonstrated.
>
> Exactly, and the way it has been demonstrated is by a violation of Bell's
> inequality as I have described.
Ah, so the challenge then is to construct the boxes where B's output is
a function of A's, but without B having any input about A's state? Ok,
yeah, I can see where that would prove impossible. Thanks for the
clarification.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:32 MDT