I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception.
People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the matter does not change because of our perceptions. "Probability" in this case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study "increased the probability" that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the "probability" will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. - Jed
