You could get to the nearest star in a few years and to the other side of the galaxy well within a human lifetime with "just" constant 1 g acceleration. Obviously this is far from easy but it doesn't seem like it is necessarily out of reach given a few thousand more years of continued technological development.
Why do I need to do that, to combat your unsupported assertion? Why don't you show some evidence instead that faster than light entanglement has been "accepted"?
The fact is, there are theories of QM that do not assume that entanglement happens faster than light. The Many Worlds theory is one that has no need for such hypothesis. And more generally, since you need to send the results via a classical (no faster than light) communication method, there's no way to be sure that the entanglement has happened faster than light.
You reject my argument without being able to point to any flaw in it. Because you and a lot of other people do not accept or have not thought of it. I can't really help with that.
If it's about popularity instead of logical argument, of course I'm not the only one who thinks this. There was a really good blog post that laid it out but I can't find it currently. Instead, here's a scientific paper I found just now, the introduction contains the same argument I'm making. And it's far from the only place which agrees.
> The problem posed in this way may lead to a lot of controversy, mainly because we do not know whether the behavior of the host had anything to do with your first choice or not.
> Perhaps the host would open a door with a goat only when your first choice was right. In this case, it was not a good choice to change doors.
EDIT: Also several people have pointed this same thing out elsewhere in this thread.
I've never watched the show, but I have read that that is not the case; sometimes he gave the option to switch, and sometimes not. Even if that were the case, it is not stated in the problem and therefore you cannot assume he behaves like he might in the real world. Also even if he had allowed the switch every previous time, it still does not logically mean that he does that the one time you are playing.
And once more, I'm talking about the problem as given, not some other problem. It is a self contained math / logic problem.
I'll try one more time. Let's imagine there are two worlds, A and B.
In A, Monty Hall behaves like you think: always opens a goat door, always gives the option to switch.
In B, he behaves like I described: opens a goat door and gives the option to switch, but only when the player has chosen the car door. Otherwise he does not let you switch.
And then we find ourselves in this situation:
> Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, “Do you want to pick door No. 2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
At this point, how do you know you are in world A and not B (or some other world)? What in this problem as given here allows you to determine that?
There being many of you does not make you any more correct. I'm not making up "fringe scenarios". I have clearly (I think) explained how, given the problem as stated, switching is not necessarily beneficial, and can be harmful. You need to make an additional assumption (that Monty necessarily behaves in a certain way) that is not stated in the problem to get to the "always switch" answer.
By the way, once you make that assumption, those other scenarios you presented are also excluded.
Obviously the goal of the problem is to get the car. Pretending that the argument I have given is like making up something about a toy car just does not do anything.
The fact is that the argument I have presented demonstrates that the problem as given is flawed and does not have a unique answer. Most people don't understand this and substitute the correct version of the problem in their mind, and then proceed to solve that by arguing about the probabilities. Of course the probabilities are what the problem is "supposed" to be about.
It does not matter if there are many rounds or one, what matters is how Monty behaves. And that is given only for the current round, and not as a general rule.
Pretty much every description of the Monty Hall problem has the same flaw, and it is here also. The problem as given does not describe the general rules by which Monty operates. It describes only a single round of playing the game.
Thefefore, Monty could be using the strategy of "if the player chose the car door, open a goat door and give the option to switch. Otherwise don't give the option to switch and the player wins the goat." In that case switching is a losing strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNBiLBQrKrnvwcVRD5fS8aA