Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390120
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, rec.arts.sf.written |
| Subject | Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. |
| Date | 2016-08-16 10:31 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <57B34DE8.6606@ix.netcom.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <rcydneeMbtEJeDDKnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> <vq32rbduq0c3oe4fmnqlaqigkne7gucfem@4ax.com> <nosh5a$6sq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <57b23ba8$0$43881$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> <L6adnfd3M9JohS7KnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 8/15/16 8/15/16 5:01 PM, benj wrote: > > The problem [...] isn't that people use statistics to obtain some measure of > > knowledge where before there was total ignorance. The problem comes when one > > starts saying that such probabilities are ALL that it is possible for humans to > > know. How can any human make such a statement? What possible basis could one > > have to justify it. > > By having mathematical theorems that state that certain observable aspects of > the world cannot be accurately described by models without inherent randomness > [#]. And then observing those aspects. Look up the Bell inequalities and the > various tests of them. > > [#] A summary of the theorems, not a statement of them. > > > Superpowers are the only possible way one could know such a > > thing. > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- > Arthur C. Clarke. I looked at your "sufficiently advanced technology", ...I opened up the IBM PC, looked inside...and there was no magic. It's junk now. All "sufficiently advanced technology" becomes just junk. But, but..if you're talking about "sufficiently advanced technology" created by aliens from outer space...sorry, i don't read science fiction books.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 10:04 -0500
Re: "Virtual Reality" is a _model_ of reality; even when it's poorly done. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-12 18:56 -0500
Re: Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:42 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:47 -0500
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-15 18:01 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-16 08:45 -0500
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 10:31 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 14:34 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-16 16:25 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 18:47 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:35 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-17 13:37 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-17 17:52 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-08-18 13:23 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 10:25 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-18 22:17 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-19 11:04 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-20 15:18 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:09 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:17 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-18 20:29 -0700
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:34 -0500
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 20:49 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-18 20:25 -0500
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-18 23:22 -0400
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-19 10:10 -0500
Re: The ProbabilityWave is _virtual_, not physical. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-19 08:35 -0700
Re: Reduce your meds. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-17 11:02 -0500
csiph-web