Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:42:52 -0800

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 <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>> 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-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Jan 10 2009 - 00:43:13 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST