I agree with all three. Bell also agrees with all three. In fact, everyone agrees with all three.FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:42 amI didn't say that I "reject" it. I actually agree with that part. Here it what a hidden variable has to be,Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:53 pmIn deterministic hidden variable theories, hidden variables emerge from the source, as in Bell's local model from Section 3 of his 1964 paper.FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 6:24 pm
LOL! You can't give your paper as a reference; the definition of "hidden variable" needs to be independent. And... I'm actually rejecting Bell's whole hidden variable program. It is junk physics. Quantum mechanics does not need any hidden variables.
"A random variable that originates at the source." That is your definition. It is not acceptable. You need to state in the definition the relation to quantum mechanics. So, your definition is way too broad. And... I don't see that definition in your paper nor Bell's.
.
But you are of course free to reject this definition and everything else from the standard hidden variable program, which goes back to Einstein.
1. A random variable
2. A variable generated by the source
3. A variable that is in addition to or supplements quantum mechanics.
You seem to not agree with number 3. But that is absurd since that is the actual "hidden" part.
.
See Section II of my paper for a discussion about how all three are implemented in a hidden variable theory: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519
.