Brent,
there are misunderstood phenomena and epistemologically underdeveloped
explanations over the past 10,000 years - plus conclusion (upon
conlusions)^n - quantizations with and without zero (14th c. AD) to develop
in our conventional scientific view the figment Bruno puts into " - " called
"The Physical World" (view). Within this there is 'physics' as a
conventional science. Never mind that beyond its 101 there are included QM
etc. considered 'less' conventional - still within the figment.
Clicking in your kind post on the *DrChinese.com* ref, you may find more
formulated trains than I care to follow, with a
-----------------------------------
"*Conclusion
*QM predicts an expectation value for cases [2] and [7] of -.1036, which is
less than 0 and seemingly absurd. However, this is born out by actual
experiments <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments>, in
defiance of common sense! This result means that the seemingly reasonable
assumption (the Realistic view) that we started with in *c.* above is
invalid. This is easily explained in QM because cases [2] and [7] are *not*
real, they are literally imaginary. (Note that X, Y and Z can be separately
tested anywhere in the world at any time and you still end up with the same
conclusion once you combine the results per *h.* above.)
---------------------------------------
you may follow the critical ways what I did not.
Many of the posts on this list are transcending limitations of the *
conventionally* *physical world* figment (although many still use elements
taken from there). Just try to roll back how many levels of concludings you
have to pass into arriving at a 'pair of entangled photons diverted into
opposite dir.' or other conditions of 'experiments' and you will not deny
the Gedankenexperiment status of EPR with its conclusions, all experiments
with supportive (Aspect?) and criticizing (Bell? Dr.Chinese?) ideas in spite
of the success in our present technology based on such conventional science
and human ingenuity.
I read Bell and Aspect 2 decades ago and thanks for the
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
for a refresher.
John M
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>wrote:
>
> 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 - 09:01:40 PST