arXiv:quant-ph/0607057quant-ph
Against `Realism'
Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.
Abstract
We examine the prevalent use of the phrase ``local realism'' in the context of Bell's Theorem and associated experiments, with a focus on the question: what exactly is the `realism' in `local realism' supposed to mean? Carefully surveying several possible meanings, we argue that all of them are flawed in one way or another as attempts to point out a second premise (in addition to locality) on which the Bell inequalities rest, and (hence) which might be rejected in the face of empirical data violating the inequalities. We thus suggest that the phrase `local realism' should be banned from future discussions of these issues, and urge physicists to revisit the foundational questions behind Bell's Theorem.
Thanks for the explanation. I was still confused about how "things actually are material and unchanging" led to "reality does not exist when we are not observing it." You pointed me in the right direction though and I'm convinced that the term is being abused by the caller…
jereView on HNParent context