Scott wrote:the experiments I'm discussing that uses spins with the Bell's Inequality demanding that the solution must prove to be 2/3 at least, when nature shows the result to be 1/2, is being argued to mean that entangled particles communicate instantaneously through space no matter how far apart they are. … "God-works-in-mysterious-ways" by magically allowing instantaneous transfer of information in space.

No information, energy or matter transfers from one particle to the other. So it's not a "communication". If you keep thinking it is, you'll keep thinking that entanglement somehow violates speed limit c. It doesn't. QM makes no such claim, quite the contrary. The entanglement connection is non-traversable. It serves only as a common reference for which entangled particle behaviors, such as spin can be mutually oriented (i.e. "correlated"). Please, read that over a few times, as it is essential to QM.

Further the spin correlation you refer to occurs in individual particles. The probabilistic relation between two different spin measures in a single particle are the same as those between two entangled particles (specifically, Green's example is analogous to a "total spin 1" pair of spin½ particles.)

Scott wrote:For the Monty Hall problem, the 1/2 solution occurs WHEN one only plays one single game independent of multiple plays.

"Probability" implies an adequate sample, even if you only wish to consider a single outcome. 50 percent, literally means 50/100. Let's not loose site of that.

Scott wrote:This is because you need at LEAST 2 events (2 games) to exhaust the odds involved.

What does that mean? If you mean, at least two flips of a coin are needed to reveal both sides, OK. So what? The more a coin is flipped the more evident its fairness will be.

Scott wrote:That is why in one single game, you cannot actually predict whether you will actually win or lose based on 3 initial choices. Instead, all that matters by "nature" is that you either WIN or LOSE, a binary relationship dependent only on the second round. …1/2 is the reality in even an infinity of possible trials.

The same win:lose binary value applies to a lottery ticket but that doesn't change its odds of being a winning ticket to 50% when millions of other such tickets have been sold.

Scott wrote:…you don't understand that the Copenhagen interpretation treats such a 'clock' as having a hand pointing to ALL numbers at once LITERALLY (not simply a mathematical practice)

On the contrary, see 3

^{rd}paragraph from the bottom of my post. That is precisely my position as well. I provide a simple, explicit mechanism for it.

Scott wrote:But the QM interpretation treats this as though the shoes shift between the kinds of orientation they are (both left to both right).

That's correct! The closest to this concept with spin is the transparent clock example above. In QM however, this occurs in every spatial direction at once (three axes independent). The only mechanism I can offer for this is that they project from primary spin on a 4

^{th}dimensional axis (time). QM has not yet recognized this, but neither has it been eliminated, nor is there any other competing mechanism. (next 2 paragraphs optional)

Imagine a clear clock flipped like a coin. When facing up, an observer looking down will see its hands moving clockwise. When its facing down the same observer looking down will see the hands spin counter clockwise. Similarly for an observer looking left. Half the time clockwise spin, half the time counter. If the flip motion has precession, a viewer from in front will find the same thing. Three independent spin axes, each revealing either clockwise or counter clockwise spin with equal probability. The clock can only be observed parallel to one viewing plane at a time. That's roughly analogous to single-particle quantum spin.

For entanglement, let a rod connect two clocks centrally along the axis of their spinning hands. If they face the same direction, and the system moves as the flipping clock above, observers will again find opposite spins at opposite ends of the rod, no matter which angle they view from. No communication occurs through the rod. It only serves as a common axis from which the clocks orient (correlate) the spins of their hands.

Scott wrote:If the spins are entangled ONLY in terms that they originate as being opposites, opening one box assures you KNOW what the other is at that exact time. But it doesn't mean that the spins jump instantly in time to the other location to tell it how it must be. They are 'predesignated' to be opposites regardless.

Correct! With a rapidly flipping clock, you can't know, until you look, which way the hands will be spinning but you can always be sure they will spin oppositely, seen from the other side.

Scott wrote: This is that "HIDDEN FACTOR" that the EPR is discussing. They are saying that we discover the opposite spin only BECAUSE their original connection makes them entangled

The connection between entangled particles is now considered equivalent to a non-traversable wormhole.[1, 2, 3] It acts as the rod between the two clocks above. Nothing communicates through it. It only serves to orient the spins of the entangled particles (i.e. it provides for "correlation"). If you wish to consider it a hidden factor, that's fine.

Scott wrote:The pairs do not swap realities in space until one opens one from one end.

They share oppositeness. Neither has definite spin until someone does a measurement. Neither can you tell me which way the hands of a clear clock are spinning until you decide which side to view it from.

Scott wrote:Only by the collective nature does the probability mean anything.

Yes! But even if you roll a fair die just once, you have a 1/6 chance of getting a five.

Scott wrote:See, you are predefining QM to BE weird…

QM was "weird" all along. There's no ultraviolet catastrophe because, as Planck reasoned, atoms have discrete orbitals. That's weird compared to a classical orbiting a satellite. Up there, you can adjust your speed to get continuously varying altitudes. Around an atom, not so. They have a few allowable energy levels and that's it. Weird…

…until it's explained by a particle's wave nature and harmonic orbitals. But that's also weird and so on…and so on…entanglement & Bells theorem.

Scott wrote:…people assumed nature through these experiments had 'cheated' by cleverly being capable of having 'superposition' powers. This is false BECAUSE of the flaws in interpretation I'm proving here.

You're biting off more than you can chew. Repeatedly firing single electrons (or photons) through a two path interferometer results in interference patterns (as long as no "which path" information is being collected). That means that an electron is effectively taking both paths at once ("path superposition"). Superposition has been around since long before anyone was talking about entanglement.

Scott wrote:…all that 'matters' in ONE specific Monty Hall game never to be played again is the second round because it is identical to the logic of you coming into the middle of the second round… When you 'believe' THAT the 2/3 solution is infallible, you ignore that nature in the Bell/QM precisely negates this. … Nature picks 1/2 as the solution.

If I tune late in to "Let’s Make a Deal" (Monty's TV show), missing the first round, does that change the odds for the second round to 1/2? No! Other people (and Nature) were watching the first round all along. The odds for switching remain 2/3.

Scott wrote:Do you accept or not the comparison of the Bell/QM experiment to the Monty Hall puzzle?

I've explained my answer several times. No.