On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 23:33:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > From: juan <[email protected]> > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 21:58:11 +0000 (UTC) > jim bell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: juan <[email protected]> > > > >> Apparently, that is true. The tantalizing thing is that > > >> SOMETHING APPEARS (information, of some nature) to be > > >> transferred between one particle and another, distant one, and > > >> yet there seems to be no way to use that transfer to actually > > >> transmit useful FTL > > > > > Which sounds rather absurd no? > > Certainly that sounds absurd! It IS absurd! > > > > Oh, OK. So I don't need to bother with patently false theories. > > Because that's what 'absurd' implies. > No, you obviously don't understand. Well, I would reply "right back at you" =) > Something can be "absurd" and > yet quite real. Sorry, what you just said is absurd =) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue" > "Absurd" merely explains how we react to something we > do not understand. Now, joking aside, I don't think you get to redefine words at will. That is not the meaning of 'absurd'. See above. > Simple example of thing that appears "absurd": To > somebody in 6th grademath, the question "what is the square root of > negative 1" looks absurd. The question is valid and not absurd. And the answer is, there's no square root for -1. > But it isn't absurd to a 12th grader taking > calculus. > So if you then make up a different number system(two dimensional), you can define some 'numbers'(actually points in a plane) to be the 'square root' of 'negative' numbers, but it's a matter of convention. Still, there are no absurdities in sight. > > >> Unfortunately for Einstein, dice are actually played. > > So says one faction of the 'scientific' establishment. Just like > > statists say that the state is legitimate. > > Scientific dispute exists. It's normal. Fine. So your assertion that 'dice are actually played' is just an unproven assertion. The party line of the statistical mechanics establishment. > What did you say, above? "So says one faction of the 'scientific' > establishment." Yes, exactly. It cuts both ways. > > It can't be infinite > Why not? Have you ever heard the term, "phase velocity"? > Yes, but I don't know what it refers to, exactly. However, I do know that mathematical abstractions and physical reality are different things despite the fact that maths is used to partially describe aspects of reality. Anyway, let's say it can be infinite. > Like I said, there's a difference between knowing something is > happening,and being able to actually employ that for useful > purposes. That may be true in general, but I don't think it's valid here. What I'm getting at is, whether *in principle* information can be transmitted. The either is a working setup that can at least transmit 1 bit, or not. It doesn't matter if at the moment you can't stream HD video... > If I see a horse running in the prairie, and yet I cannot > capture him, Icannot use him to travel at horse-speed rather than > man-speed. Even in the 1s00s, people knew that light traveled at a > finite(non-infinite) velocity. Hint: It involved Jupiter's > moons Thanks for the hint. I already knew the story of the danish astronomer. Clever guy. > We simply don't know how to use > entangled photons to transmit informationat greater than 'c'. How do you know it is at all possible? The only way for you to know that is if at least > And > there is no guarantee we will ever know how to doso. And if you > believe that something must definitely be one thing, or another, I > will have to introduce you to Schrodinger's Cat. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat > > ...which has the weird property of being able to be alive and dead > at the same time. I'm pretty sure schroedinger's cat happens to be a **reductio ad absurdum** though I admit I never looked into the original soource Schrödinger, Erwin (November 1935). "Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik" Does any body have a copy? At any rate : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum if you assume bullshit at 'microscopic' level then you end up with bullshit at 'macroscopic' level. If you start with a certain premise and you end up with an ABSURD conclusion then you know the premise is false. Basic logic. There are no dead-and-live cats, and so it follows there's no 'magical' bullshit at microscopic level either. J.
