John Mikes wrote: > Brent wrote: > > "...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the > influence of "the rest of the world" is non-local > (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..." > > EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How > can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that "shows..."?
Because it has been performed in various ways and is not just a "thought experiment". http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm Brent > Furthermore: relativity is a (genius) human idea, based on the figment > of the 'physical world' (assumption). Whether something is consistent or > inconsistent with it, is also no 'proof' to be considered in dubious > theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics). > (Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt' > the focus of my post.) > > John M > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com > <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>> wrote: > > > John Mikes wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > > > I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi > > assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations > > beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences. > > Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and > probabilistics. > > * > > Bruno quotes in " -- " lines, like the starting proposition: > > "It is because an event can be random or probabilistic..." > > * > > "...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random > > experience with a probability "measure" > > HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2...." > > > > Wrong. > > A "PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It > > is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the > > outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the > > starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP. > > Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so that > it lands heads or tails as he chooses. Many professional magicians can > do it to. > > > > To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you > > identify 'probability'. (I don't). > > To your evaluating paragraph "Fair Enough": fair enough. > > That makes my point. > > * > > The "experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey" are above my > > head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even > a big > > genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming > AFTER his > > time. > > (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!) > > > > "...Einstein missed comp by its "conventionalist math" blindness > > perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in > computer > > science. ..." > > > > I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to > > the level of asking resonable questions. > > I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am > > further away from your domain to do so. > > > > Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far. > > > > One word of how I feel about probability: > > In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains > > for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the > item > > in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond > > the boundaries of that domain. The "next" occurrence in the future > > history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past history in > > our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited into our > > model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world', so we > > cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all. > > Ominscient is different. I am not. > I think it is an open question whether there is inherent randomness in > quantum mechanics. In Bohmian QM the randomness comes from ignorance of > "the rest of the world". But the EPR experiments show that this can > only hold if the influence of "the rest of the world" is non-local > (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity. > > Brent > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
