johnstricker (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} johnstricker) wrote,@ 2008-12-10 00:08:00 |
|
Mal wieder mathpages.com
"(...) any two spatially separate events share a common causal past, consisting of the intersection of their past light cones. This implies that we can never categorically rule out some kind of "pre-arranged" correlation between spacelike-separated events - at least not unless we can introduce information that is guaranteed to be causally independent of prior events. The appearance of such "new events" whose information content is at least partially independent of their causal past, constitutes a free choice. If no free choice is ever possible, then (as Bell acknowledged) the Bell inequalities do not apply."
(From here: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-0
Sehr, SEHR gut ausgedrückt. Eine Quelle der Einsicht für mich.
"(...) any two spatially separate events share a common causal past, consisting of the intersection of their past light cones. This implies that we can never categorically rule out some kind of "pre-arranged" correlation between spacelike-separated events - at least not unless we can introduce information that is guaranteed to be causally independent of prior events. The appearance of such "new events" whose information content is at least partially independent of their causal past, constitutes a free choice. If no free choice is ever possible, then (as Bell acknowledged) the Bell inequalities do not apply."
(From here: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-0
Sehr, SEHR gut ausgedrückt. Eine Quelle der Einsicht für mich.
