Relativity, relational holisim and the bell inequalities (contd.)

0:00 The probability for outcome A, all right, given that the set is independent of the meter setting, this is because I put signal to you over here by monkeying with my meter setting and affecting the following thing called outcome independent, which is that the over here, over there, given of the two outcomes, As Jarrett already hinted at, the violation of the theorem isn't, there's no obvious way to see any conflict, at least with the principle that you can't send signals faster than light, because if you try to do that, I mean, suppose you wanted to send a signal to the guy over there by relying on the outcomes over here, But you can't do that because the outcomes over in B are themselves the test. You have no control over what outcome you're going to have over B. So you can't use a violation of this to control what's going to happen over there and thereby just send a signal. So the net result that we have is that this is implied by relativity. There's WC. Two together gives factorizability.

2:30 Factorizability gives development equality. Here again, although it still feels like if there's some connection between, if there's some stochastic connection, how could that be, other than there being strings between? How this could be violated is to show you how a vision holds from the assumption that the real world has only point values, that it follows, that outcome independence follows from a plus a universal point value. Plus these further assumptions at the middle of the page. Page 4 again, B, where I have this thing written up. First of all, let me make the set-up of the assumptions. We look just at the special case where we have exact point values. We want to know whether or not, we're examining the issue of whether or not there are correlations between these exact point values. For exact point values, correlations can arise only in one of two ways. One is the prior agreement method. What is that? Well, I'll explain by giving you an example. The other one has black hole.

5:00 Or even perhaps one that does not have space. How is this miracle achieved? Well, no problem. For the coin, you just hit and put in white. Good, stop talking. We'll do it when it's close to time. Soldier ahead. All of these are causal signals when we are talking about connections between exact points of the Ural-Nautic space-line related points. The critical assumption is that the correlations between exact point values can only arise in one of these two ways.

7:30 Now, with that assumption, plus UPVA, let me argue, it's trivial. We know that these relativities fit. How do these relativities call for theories? We need to think that these theories talk about inherent relations, relations that don't supervene on the non-relational properties of nature. I made quite a bit of fuss about 15 minutes ago. Where is it going to? It kind of dropped out of sight. Where is that? Well, there's a claim that this is what's going on in high school. That, well, when you have correlates, they're correlated. You factor out all the local causes of it. You've still got a correlation. It goes above and beyond any local fact. It goes above and beyond the local fact about what the marginal district is, and it goes beyond all the others.

10:00 You've conditionalized all those out with the lambda. So this is an experiment in a specific way in which it begins to tell us a little bit. Now let me take another couple of applications. Let me, uh, now people always ask me if relativistic quantum field theory, that's a relativistic theory, isn't it? So, clearly something must be wrong on the exact values that apply to this point and the exact values that apply to that point, right?

12:30 The other way that relativistic quantum field theories are relativistic are in these points that space-like separations commute. But again, just that one restriction with the idea that there are things like this holding in space. So, relatively, we can make sense of relativistically correct theories that are completely consistent with this relativity theory. What does this mean for the original question, namely that because you have this, and this is false, that must be false. Does it follow that relativity theory claims that the argument is no good, but it now looks like It turns out that relativity theory is false for another reason. If by relativity one of these ones, it turns out that they're false because we have, our world is one in which some of our situation, well, in which the universal point value assumption is false, our world is over here in which there are, in addition to exact point values, these inexact values of these inherent relations or what have you. Well, I don't like to do it that way. I think that's misleading. And I want to close with the thought is that these relativistic constants are just not designed to deal with these kinds of worlds. And we've got no reason to think that insofar as we are dealing with exact point values that any of these relativistic constants are.

15:00 In that sense, it's misleading to say that it's a failure of the Bellman equality. All of these terms can be applied in a limited domain, and that they apply only in those idealizations in which our world is pretty much like one of the worlds over here. When we look at quantum phenomena, we discover that they're phenomena which bring our world over here, and so we have to realize that these kinds of situations are outside the domain of application of relativistic causal theory. If there's a presupposition that they seem to have of point values, then there's no reason to think that they're incorrect.

17:30 In that piece of work, you start from the fact that there is a correlation, and you say, what can we make of it? Can we see this as a causal influence? You propose a plausible condition on what it is that must be met for a stochastic correlation to count as a causal influence, and that condition fails, and so you conclude there is no stochastic correlation or right to begin with. The only conflict is misunderstanding about the modesty of what I'm trying to do, all right?

20:00 So let me make sure that's clear. Methodological and metaphysical therapy to get us to see how this seems plausible. We haven't taken much to our bosom as a real option. It's important because when we really get clear, only insofar as we're really clear that

22:30 Particularism has got to be abandoned and we've got to try to understand what's going on in the world within a broader metaphysical framework. Will we make progress in getting clear about the details of what that broader metaphysical framework is like? Put in another way, I claim that insofar as we soldier ahead with the often unconscious presupposition of particularism, We're borrowing ourselves from looking for the right kind of theory, and the right kind of metaphysics, and the right kind of way of understanding the world. But, having said that much, having said something about the kind of metaphysics that's needed, does that tell us exactly what's going on? No way! Much more detail needs to be said. In particular, the really painful part is, how does the measurement problem fit into all of this? Because what I haven't said a word about is what the connection is between these inherent relations and the non-relational properties. We know that there's some slipping back and forth between the two, and it's not clear at all how that's going to fit into this crew we described. ...two, but let me make it short. If you take the values of all the observables in the universe, and they're connected to, and the set of those values is the hidden variable in the determinants, Then you can apply an MRI of the next quantum driver, but it can't lead to the future, it just collapses down. So I think myself that to adopt the UTBA assumption, then you can go back up to your original.

25:00 We start out with an EPR, locality, arguments that then we can bring in, relatively at that point. All of these are not computers that we use. You started off by saying time horizon. It's just another way of saying the same thing over again, in a slightly more complicated way. In part because, first of all, some people don't agree with that, so, okay, if you don't agree with that, still, you know, we get to the same thing. Also, I find this a kind of neat way of what's ultimately going on. It's just a code theory.

27:30 I meant the same thing applied to things which really are the exact values of the space-time points. It's true that you can specify the relation. And so on. All of these have exact point values because you've got exact amplitudes at each point, and it's a, I hope interesting, but not very clear-cut and simple, and I hope, clear-cut argument to the effect that now these, in quantum, all kinds of quantum theories, you've got these inherent relational facts. Now, they progress, all right, but what we mean by a causal process... In general, all the examples that we have to work with cause connections between exact values holding its point. And the things that we trace through from the quantum theory are more general than that. So don't fall under these strictures about what kind of causal processes are limited by... Uh, Warren, you're going to want to...

30:00 Without any more ado, let me say that it's a great pleasure to talk with us, English folk, to be working on American Visitor So-Called. It's a delight to have Gordon Fleming talk to us about relativistic quantum measurements and the autonomy of space-time. Thank you, Jeremy. I want to express my extreme gratitude for the incredible hospitality that I've enjoyed during this first part of my visit to England, my second visit to England. I anticipate that I will enjoy similar qualities of hospitality as we leave this area at the end of the week and wind our way, my wife and I, north, west, south, east, whatever, to New England. It's been wonderful. And I have to express one special commendation to at least Paul and Jeremy. I'm not sure if there are others. We have girded their loins for no less than the third ordeal of listening to my particular form of rhetoric instead of less than a week. I want to talk about a subject which I addressed last June here at Cambridge and some of you in the audience will recognize similar aspects. But there are two punchlines at the end.