John also has an excellent series of 7 blog posts covering this material:
The conversation amongst philosophers about the notion of free will and its relationship to determinism has a rich and nuanced history. It's disappointing to see someone who should know better be so flippantly dismissive of that conversation.
I put this on my reading list after the recent update, having a casual interest in foundations. While I don't have quite enough physics background to see if anything is being swept under the rug, I found it an interesting point of view, written clearly and without mysticism. In particular, I now un
I read this paper as an appendix of an unwritten Fantasy novel, where a 21st century cosmologist is trapped in an alternate Aristotelian 13th century universe ! Thanks for the nice read !
This paper only considers two party entanglement. If you move to three parties, then the entangled states in the GK theorem include the GHZ state and the measurements that you need in order to violate Bell inequalities for these states. Thus the argument in this paper seems to fall apart for n>2 q
GHZ state is separable if you trace out any subsystem. Therefore I don't think you can violate Bell inequality with GHZ state.
"the entangled states in the GK theorem include the GHZ state and the measurements that you need in order to violate Bell inequalities for these states"
If this is true, the GHZ state and all local measurements' projectors needed for Bell inequality violation must be in the same MUB polytope, con
Han-Hsuan, I think Dave is using the term "Bell inequality" to refer more generally to entanglement witnesses that are can be constructed from correlated local measurements.
In the multipartite setting, these witnesses distinguish the entangled state from any tripartite separable state. Here's t