Jean-Louis:
> Alain Aspect came to explain his experiment to our class when I was a
> student. The experiment showed that quantum uncertainty cannot be
explained
> by "hidden variables".

F : I understand it had allready been shown by John Bell, and Alain Aspect
confirmed it experimentaly.
You wrote:
"The EPR paradox showed that uncertainty in quantum physics is not due to
our ignorance or "hidden variables" but is really a law of physics".
It's not the EPR paradox itself which showed that but Bell and latter
experiments, the more concluding ones being the ones of Aspect & al.
OK, sorry, I might be hair splitting.

> Two particles can be correlated "instantaneously" but this doesn't mean
they
> communicate, i.e. you cannot send any information (like a message in
> English) faster than the speed of light. In other words, correlation is
not
> the same thing as causality.

F : Yes, of course particles do not communicate in English. But, if I
understand well, we have to admit either that an "instantaneous" signal
(faster than light) somehow connects them, or else that they are still one
when far apart (non-separable localy). Anyhow the fondations of our common
concept of  reality are broken.
Physicists don't seem to agree on a standart model yet. Bohm and Hiley use
instantaneous interactions between quantum systems, making an unbroken
wholness of the universe. Some reintroduce the concept of "ether" while some
others, such as Costa de Beauregard, take the reversibility of the quantum
mecanics equations to consider the possibility to influence the past from
the present.
>
> Finally, Etienne Klein's quote is a nice metaphor, but no more than that.
> Human relations probably don't need quantum physics to be explained.

F : I welcome any rationnal explanation of telepathy and other ESP
phenomenons.
Bell's views and experiments about the EPR paradox may well not be the
proper explanation. It just shows ESP can be explained by some scientific
theory or another. Facing the complexity of the universe and of the life,
our knowledge is very limited, approximate, and full of blanks. Science has
always been wrong, specially when it pretended something impossible.
Tommorow's science will consider today's one as curiosity of the dull past,
unless it leaves the doors open to futur knowledge and progress.

Cordialement,
Francois