Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #690011 > unrolled thread

Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 09:20 -0700
    Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:09 -0400
      Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 14:32 -0700
        Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
          No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 15:00 -0700
            Re: No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 15:01 -0700
              We assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ). Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-11 15:27 -0700
        Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 19:57 -0400
          Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-12 17:11 +0000
            SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-12 12:03 -0700
              Re: SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:03 -0700
                Enjoy your silly hat. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-13 14:46 -0700
                  Re: Enjoy your silly hat. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:20 -0700
                    Sex toys/dolls. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-15 00:44 -0700
                      Re: Sex toys/dolls. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:49 -0700
                        Re: Sex toys/dolls. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-15 11:47 -0400
                        MostChristian != BestChristian Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-06-15 13:46 -0700

#690011 — Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete.

You (Ben) asked me:
> > John Bell _failed_ to solve The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox
> > because  " Correlation does not imply causation ";
> > Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete.
> 
> Utter drool. Your "theory" assumed both locality and causality. 

All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:

  Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
  otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.

> It also assumes that EPR is true 
> which Bell showed can't be so because both of 
> the above are not allowed to both be true.

John Bell did _nothing_ to alter our opinion.
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete;
correlation does not imply causation.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#690084

On 6/11/2018 12:20 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You (Ben) asked me:
>>> John Bell _failed_ to solve The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox
>>> because  " Correlation does not imply causation ";
>>> Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete.
>>
>> Utter drool. Your "theory" assumed both locality and causality.
> 
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
> 
>    Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
>    otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.

Well this is no surprise, Rolf. Living in your mom's basement isn't much 
to aspire to.

>> It also assumes that EPR is true
>> which Bell showed can't be so because both of
>> the above are not allowed to both be true.
> 
> John Bell did _nothing_ to alter our opinion.
> Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete;
> correlation does not imply causation.

Of course it's statistical. Everybody knows that. That's the whole point 
of Bell which says that assumptions of relativity CANNOT be true if your 
assumptions of mechanistic absolute causality are true. But then I'm 
sure you "care" more than Einstein, too!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690094 — Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".

You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.

Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".

All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:

   Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
   otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690096 — Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".

On 6/11/18 2:32 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
> to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.
> 
> Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".
> 
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
> 
>     Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
>     otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.

So you have faith that there is no randomness. Cool. I share that 
intuition, but I realize it is not something we can prove.

Do you?


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690110 — No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%.

TheSnitBot replied ( to me ):
> > You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
> > to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.
> > 
> > Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".
> > 
> > All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
> > 
> >     Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
> >     otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.
> 
> I realize it's not something we can prove.  Do you?

No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%.

Nor can I prove that you're human, far from it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690112 — Re: No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%.

On 6/11/18 3:00 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> TheSnitBot replied ( to me ):
>>> You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
>>> to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.
>>>
>>> Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".
>>>
>>> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
>>>
>>>      Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
>>>      otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.
>>
>> I realize it's not something we can prove.  Do you?
> 
> No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%.

Can you offer support for the idea of a LACK of randomness?

> Nor can I prove that you're human, far from it.

My ancient AIM bot was good, but not that good. :)


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690119 — We assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ).

TheSnitBot replied ( to me ):
> > No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%.
> 
> Can you offer support for the idea of a LACK of randomness?

All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:

     Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
     otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.

Again, we assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ),
irregardless of the truth.

Likewise,  " Randomness is ignorance, nothing more " 
is useful _if_ you're like Einstein and me, not The Pope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690133 — Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".

On 6/11/2018 5:32 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
> to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.
> 
> Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".
> 
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
> 
>     Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
>     otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.
> 
Just keep preaching Rev. Say it enough an it becomes true science!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690237 — Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:57:27 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 6/11/2018 5:32 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> You don't have to be an Einstein ( and you sure aren't )
>> to realize that Quantum Mechanics isn't complete.
>> 
>> Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know".
>> 
>> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells _me_:
>> 
>>     Randomness is ignorance, nothing more;
>>     otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for _me_ to aspire to.
>> 
> Just keep preaching Rev. Say it enough an it becomes true science!

If I understand the Rev. correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism.

I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis.  Is it 
science?

I think there was once a scientist of some renown that said that he was 
fascinated that the universe was knowable.  I'll try to remember who that 
was, hopefully someone can jog my memory.

-- 
-v

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690264 — SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me.

You (Scott) wrote:
> If I understand [Jeff] correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism.

SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me;
it is _not_ useful to The Pope, nor to you.

> I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis.
> Is it science?

You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.

The best you can do is:

  - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
  - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).

> I think there was once a scientist of some renown 
> that said that he was fascinated that the universe was knowable.
> hopefully someone can jog my memory.

It was Adam, when he left "dad's house" ( the Garden of Eden ).

"The Universe is knowable" - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube.

P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:

  It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
  like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not;
  it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690426 — Re: SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me.

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 3:04:03 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You (Scott) wrote:
> > If I understand [Jeff] correctly, he's a proponent of superdeterminism.
> 
> SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me;
> it is _not_ useful to The Pope, nor to you.
> 
> > I'm not sure that superdeterminism is a testable hypothesis.
> > Is it science?
> 
> You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
> nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.
> 
> The best you can do is:
> 
>   - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
>   - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).

Something useful out of you. Congratulations!

> 
> > I think there was once a scientist of some renown 
> > that said that he was fascinated that the universe was knowable.
> > hopefully someone can jog my memory.
> 
> It was Adam, when he left "dad's house" ( the Garden of Eden ).
> 
> "The Universe is knowable" - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube.

Albert Einstein.
 "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is 
  that it is comprehensible" from "Physics and Reality"(1936)
> 
> P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:
> 
>   It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
>   like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not;
>   it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.

All scientific theories are supported by
"an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test".

Bell's theorem meets your own criteria. Physicists
"Find it useful ( in its domain )." where the domain is
particle physics. And it has not been falsified (yet).

So rant about indeterminism all you want. Those rants
will not prove the universe is deterministic. And assuming
determinism at the quantum level is not useful.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690483 — Enjoy your silly hat.

You ( Ed Prochak ) replied ( to me ):
> > You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
> > nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.
> > 
> > The best you can do is:
> > 
> >   - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
> >   - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).
> 
> Rant about indeterminism all you want. 
> Those rants will not prove the universe is deterministic. 

Who's trying to "prove" it ? not me.

> > SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein and me;
> > it is _not_ useful to you and The Pope.
> 
> Assuming determinism at the quantum level is not useful.

Fine, you're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein.
Enjoy your silly hat.

> > P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:
> > 
> >   It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
> >   like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not;
> >   it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.
> 
> All scientific theories are supported by
> "an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test".

General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom 
-- intrinsically misleading.  The 4-D TimeScape is static,
both everything _and_ nothing.

> > " The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube.
> 
> << One may say
>    " the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility "  >>
> 
>     -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in  " Physics and Reality ".

" One may say "...

As his next sentence, Einstein wrote:

  It is one of the great realizations of   Immanuel Kant   that
  the setting up of a real external world would be senseless
  without this comprehensibility.

     -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in  " Physics and Reality ".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690597 — Re: Enjoy your silly hat.

On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 5:46:58 PM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Ed Prochak ) replied ( to me ):
> > > You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
> > > nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.
> > > 
> > > The best you can do is:
> > > 
> > >   - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
> > >   - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).
> > 
> > Rant about indeterminism all you want. 
> > Those rants will not prove the universe is deterministic. 
> 
> Who's trying to "prove" it ? not me.

Then what is your purpose to repeating that
randomness is ignorance? That there is "SuperDeterminism"

> 
> > > SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein and me;
> > > it is _not_ useful to you and The Pope.
> > 
> > Assuming determinism at the quantum level is not useful.
> 
> Fine, you're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein.
> Enjoy your silly hat.

I do wear silly hats at times.
and BTW, I am on team Pope and team Einstein.
They play not just different leagues, but in different sports!
> 
> > > P.S. The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:
> > > 
> > >   It's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
> > >   like a pollster, asking _10_ people if they'll vote for Hillary or not;
> > >   it's incomplete, SemiRandom -- intrinsically, it's misleading.
> > 
> > All scientific theories are supported by
> > "an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test".
> 
> General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom 
> -- intrinsically misleading.  The 4-D TimeScape is static,
> both everything _and_ nothing.

Conjecture. It is one view of relativity. and not uncommon.

> 
> > > " The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson, on YouTube.
> > 
> > << One may say
> >    " the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility "  >>
> > 
> >     -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in  " Physics and Reality ".
> 
> " One may say "...
> 
> As his next sentence, Einstein wrote:
> 
>   It is one of the great realizations of   Immanuel Kant   that
>   the setting up of a real external world would be senseless
>   without this comprehensibility.
> 
>      -- Albert Einstein, 1936, in  " Physics and Reality ".

Well even the great Albert can fall into a tauntology
on occasion.

But we are slowly coming to realize that there can be
a real external world out there, but that does not mean
or guarantee that it has to be compresensible.

Enjoy.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690691 — Sex toys/dolls.

You (Ed) replied:
> > " It is one of the great realizations of   Immanuel Kant   that
> >   the setting up of a real external world would be senseless
> >   without this comprehensibility.  "  -- Einstein.
> 
> even Albert can fall into a tauntology [sic], on occasion.

This, "The Anthropic Principle", is a _useful_ tautology.

> But we are slowly coming to realize that there can be
> a real external world out there, but that does not mean
> or guarantee that it has to be compresensible.

SuperDeterminism is a better religion;
"God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less.

" The Universe is knowable " - Neil deGrasse Tyson:
    YouTube.COM/watch?v=3sAav37h4os

> > Who's trying to "prove" SuperDeterminism ? not me.
> 
> [ Why do you assert SuperDeterminism so much ? ]

Because everyone, from the serial killer to his executer,
are best viewed under this light (SuperDeterminism),
instead of assuming free will, à la Christianity.

We simply prefer the LeastBad "option",
and we can't change what we prefer.

Ted Bundy wanted (female) sex dolls;
Jeffrey Dahmer wanted (male) sex dolls;
the killing was incidental.

Learning that, knowing that, is better than assuming
that Satan got to them, and that they needed Christ.
Today, Mildred, one can _buy_ sex toys/dolls.

The only difference between us and "stars/cars/monkeys"
is how and what we consume... our nitch.

> > You're on Team Pope, not Team Einstein.  Enjoy your silly hat.
> 
> I'm on team Pope and team Einstein.
> They play not just different leagues, but in different sports!

The most "Christian" person I've ever met
was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie;
so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once.

> > General Relativity is _not_ incomplete, SemiRandom 
> > -- intrinsically misleading.  The 4-D TimeScape is static,
> > both everything _and_ nothing.
> 
> Conjecture.  It is one view of relativity, and not uncommon.

At the start, there was no entropy, just infinite eXergy/density. 
[ eXergy is a type of energy that can do physical work, force * distance ]
And, because " Time == Entropy ", there was no time on the clock then.

Eventually, this eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy;
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy
but none of the eXergy.  Gravity is the "memory" of where the stuff was.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690706 — Re: Sex toys/dolls.

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:44:26 AM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You (Ed) replied:
> > I'm on team Pope and team Einstein.
> > They play not just different leagues, but in different sports!
> 
> The most "Christian" person I've ever met
> was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie;
> so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once.

You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met.

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690717 — Re: Sex toys/dolls.

On 6/15/2018 8:49 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 3:44:26 AM UTC-4, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> You (Ed) replied:
>>> I'm on team Pope and team Einstein.
>>> They play not just different leagues, but in different sports!
>>
>> The most "Christian" person I've ever met
>> was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie;
>> so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once.
> 
> You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met.
> 
> Ed
> 
Let's just say that in Rolf's world he has a hard time finding "friends".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#690756 — MostChristian != BestChristian

> > The most "Christian" person I've ever met
> > was a violent, alcoholic, thieving junkie;
> > so, yeah, one _can_ play on both sides of the field at once.
> 
> You had a very poor life if that was the best Christian you ever met.

MostChristian != BestChristian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web