zlacker

>>qqqqqu+(OP)
Bell's theorem. It somehow proves that quantum physics is incompatible with local hidden variables, but I could never see an understandable explanation (for me at least) of just how it works.

>>lpelli+ag
Yudkowsky's explanation[1] is the first one that worked for me. I later found Quantum mysteries for anyone[2] helpful. The latter has less soap-boxing.

1: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AnHJX42C6r6deohTG/bell-s-the...

2: https://kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/...

>>scioli+Hh
I started to read the first one but his insistence that Many Worlds is true was too frustrating. Many Worlds Theorem seems specifically useful at saying "the variables aren't hidden because everything before wavefunction collapses actually plays out in different worlds.

But, we specifically have no way of proving that theory. So now we're back to the essence of the original question - if these things seem random why do we know that they're in fact deterministic without any hidden variables?

>>Shamel+Vm
Well, I'd recommend to read the whole series. It's not so bad as it sounds. There are so many steps from where you are to appreciating the utter weirdness of Bell's experimental result. Not the weirdness of any theory (or an interpretation, which Many Worlds actually is) but of the basic experimental result.

If you are properly amazed by it, rejecting MWI or any crazy-ish borderline-conspiracy theory seems suddenly a lot harder.

I feel the whole Yudkowsky's QM series in fact served to deliver that one post.

>>kubanc+dq
To be clear, I don't reject Many Worlds at all and in fact consider it a promising candidate due to it sort of "falling out" of the Schrodinger's equations taken literally unless you add complexity.

But the fact remains that it is impossible to prove and it is conveniently well equipped to handle this situation. I'd prefer an argument that presupposes the Copenhagen interpretation as that is when my intuition fails.

>>Shamel+2u
If experimenters disprove Many Worlds, they've also disproved Copenhagen. These are exactly the same equations after all.

Theoreticians choose very different mindsets about the same equations, which (they say) somehow create them grounds to form various new hypotheses. As far as I know neither approach was very fruitful so far in terms of new science, so people try multitude of others.

What I've meant to say above, I have much trouble using Copenhagen to understand Bell's experiment. MWI fits the bill here for me.