On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:02 PM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Random is (IMO) out: how would you justify ANY of the physical laws and > their consequences if 'random' occurrences may intrude > Easy, just change from "if X and Y then Z" to "if X and Y then usually Z". In fact that is exactly what scientists have been doing in the real world from day one. I don't see why this bothers you so much, after all there is no logical reason ANY event must have a cause so we should count ourselves lucky that at least some of them do. And it's not as if we have a choice in the matter, we know for a fact that the Bell inequality is violated so if you insistent determinism then thing are non-local or things don't exist in a definite state when you're not looking at them or both. And it gets worse, more recently it was discovered that the Leggett–Garg inequality is also violated and that means those non-local forces must be even stranger, not only are they unaffected by distance and carry information faster than light but the future can change the past and the arrow of time is dead. Do you want determinism THAT bad? > *> Statistics* is (IMO) a no-no, > Bur statistics is necessary and it works, and that is exactly what you'd expect to happen if sometimes things are deterministic and sometimes they are not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
