The above is mostly correct as I understand it, except for the last bit.OuterLimits wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:49 pmQM is statistical. If one were impatient, looking only at a few results, one would have no "theory" at all. The inputs don't specify the outputs.
Bell's inequality is the most revolutionary when we imagine we are "freely choosing" the orientations of our measuring devices. If we don't have that bias, it's less interesting. http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm
'...
In fact, when Bell contemplated the possibility that determinism might also apply to himself and other living beings, he coined a different name for it, calling it “super-determinism”. Regarding the experimental tests of quantum entanglement he said
>> One of the ways of understanding this business is to say that the world is super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental result creates disappears. <<
But what Bell calls (admittedly on the spur of the moment) super-determinism is nothing other than what philosophers have always called simply determinism.
...'
See Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will theorem, which also invokes super-determinsim. It's not the same as standard determinism. Super-determinism implies that all our choices in experimental setups are biased in such a way that we will never be able to form a correct theory. This seems wildly implausible to say the least. If true, all of science is invalid