Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689172 > unrolled thread
| Started by | will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 96 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
"Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
" I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
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
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
Asleep, living in a dream. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 10:04 -0700
Re: Asleep, living in a dream. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:22 -0500
Re: Asleep, living in a dream. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0400
Your house is built on sand. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:43 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 09:41 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:17 -0400
"statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:53 -0700
When I hear the word "Quantum", I replace it with the word "BullShit". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 15:09 -0700
Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 20:00 -0400
" I can't know " -- Bell's Theorem. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 19:29 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. |
| Message-ID | <1dfef561-f1d5-42a9-9f6f-cb726ae10969@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #689753 |
On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 6:01:44 PM UTC-4, Melzzzzz wrote: > > I remember one study they tried to predict direction of fly, they > couldn't. Even fly is unpredictable. > Since this thread has gone off the rails anyway, this reminds me of a friend's saying: Time flies I cannot. Their flight is too irregular. Thank Joe for the laughs! Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. |
| Message-ID | <fo3463FochoU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689746 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 14:51:14 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Scott replied ( to Mike ): >> > How do you know if you have free will ? >> >> This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, >> and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in >> long-refuted 19th century determinism. > > "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? I see you are stuck in 19th century determinism. That's a shame, because it is now common knowledge that there are non-deterministic processes in nature. You are, of course, free to deny this, if your religion demands it. > > Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; > we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; > hence ego, online gaming and religion. > > Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. > To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. > >> One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- >> deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that >> consciousness is also non-deterministic. > > All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me ( not you ): > > Randomness is ignorance, nothing more; > otherwise, there'd be NO TRUTH, nothing for me to aspire to. > >> If you don't experience your will as being free, >> then you belong in [ EINSTEIN's ] category [ far from the Pope ]. You're equating yourself with Einstein? I said "Jeff", not what you post- edited. Incidentally, Einstein used to say "God does not play dice with the universe" -- then had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation was more accurate than he was comfortable with. > > _Everyone_ is enslaved, there is no free will. > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", > and we can't change what we prefer. > > How and What we consume is what makes us different. > > 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. > > General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, > perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing. Do you have a shrine for your religion? If so, please post photos, should be interesting. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700 |
| Subject | People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--4.40pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689779 |
You (Scott) replied ( to me ): > > "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? > > I see you are stuck in 19th century determinism. GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. > That's a shame, because it is now common knowledge that > there are non-deterministic processes in nature. Your ignorance depends on how impervious you are ( "willfull" or not ) to the truth. > You are, of course, free to deny this, if your religion demands it. Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; hence ego, online gaming and religion. 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. You, on the other hand, aspire to something else. Kids are the domain of the poor, uneducated and unfortunate. Replace the word "love" with "30 year mortgage" and everything becomes clear. > > Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. > > To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. > > > > > If you don't experience your will as being free, > > > then you belong in [ EINSTEIN's ] category [ far from the Pope ]. > > You're equating yourself with Einstein? > I said "Jeff", not what you post-edited. You think Einstein wouldn't agree with me, on this ? If so, it's because you haven't read what he wrote, nor do you care to, because it'd ruin your ego. > Einstein used to say "God does not play dice with the universe" > -- then had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation was > more accurate than he was comfortable with. People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them/you. Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " correlation does not imply causation " ). > > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", > > and we can't change what we prefer. > > > > How and What we consume is what makes us different. > > Do you have a shrine for your religion? > If so, please post photos, should be interesting. Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. |
| Message-ID | <fo38seFochoU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689789 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:40:41 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > You (Scott) replied ( to me ): >> > "refuted" by whom, the Pope ? >> >> I see you are stuck in 19th century determinism. > > GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, > (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. > >> That's a shame, because it is now common knowledge that there are >> non-deterministic processes in nature. > > Your ignorance depends on how impervious you are ( "willfull" or not ) > to the truth. > >> You are, of course, free to deny this, if your religion demands it. > > Everyone avoids the truth, to some extent; > we assert _useful_ premises, irregardless of the truth; > hence ego, online gaming and religion. > > 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. > > You, on the other hand, aspire to something else. > > Kids are the domain of the poor, uneducated and unfortunate. > Replace the word "love" with "30 year mortgage" and everything becomes > clear. > >> > Einstein, on the other hand, loved the truth, more than most. >> > To his death, he kept telling us: free will is an illusion. >> > >> > > If you don't experience your will as being free, >> > > then you belong in [ EINSTEIN's ] category [ far from the Pope ]. >> >> You're equating yourself with Einstein? >> I said "Jeff", not what you post-edited. > > You think Einstein wouldn't agree with me, on this ? > If so, it's because you haven't read what he wrote, > nor do you care to, because it'd ruin your ego. > >> Einstein used to say "God does not play dice with the universe" >> -- then had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation was more >> accurate than he was comfortable with. > > People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them/you. > > Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. > He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, > that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " > correlation does not imply causation " ). > >> > We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", >> > and we can't change what we prefer. >> > >> > How and What we consume is what makes us different. >> >> Do you have a shrine for your religion? >> If so, please post photos, should be interesting. > > Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG ...your shrine is a Verizon datacenter? <https://www.globaldots.com/verizon-auctions-data-centers-google-cloud- attacks-amazon-weeks-news/> How...quaint. Goes with the 19th century philosophy though. Raised floor ftw: https://www.plannet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Data_Center.jpg Or, for the more traditionalists (obLinux): $ ll bible* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1740565 Feb 18 2016 bible.data -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 878388 Feb 18 2016 bible.data.conc -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Putting words in Einstein's mouth. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--5.42pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689809 |
> > > Do you have a shrine for your religion? > > > If so, please post photos, should be interesting. > > > > Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG > > your shrine is a Verizon datacenter? > globaldots.com/verizon-auctions-data-centers-google-cloud-attacks-amazon-weeks-news/ The (stock) image is from "DataCenterVoice.COM". > How...quaint. Goes with the 19th century philosophy though. I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. I'm forever correcting people like you, who put words in Einstein's mouth; 9 times out of ten ( at least ), the SoCalled "quotes" aren't his. It's _very_ annoying; ShitHeads, like you, are making me work hard. Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " correlation does not imply causation " ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. |
| Message-ID | <fo3beoFochoU8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689813 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:42:58 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> > > Do you have a shrine for your religion? >> > > If so, please post photos, should be interesting. >> > >> > Jeff-Relf.Me/TodaysBible.JPG >> >> your shrine is a Verizon datacenter? >> globaldots.com/verizon-auctions-data-centers-google-cloud-attacks- amazon-weeks-news/ > > The (stock) image is from "DataCenterVoice.COM". > >> How...quaint. Goes with the 19th century philosophy though. > > I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. > GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, > (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. Begging the claim. > > I'm forever correcting people like you, who put words in Einstein's > mouth; No I didn't. > 9 times out of ten ( at least ), the SoCalled "quotes" aren't his. Except, this time, it is. (See below.) > It's _very_ annoying; ShitHeads, like you, are making me work hard. Tut tut -- it must be really annoying when the "ShitHeads" turn out to be right, eh? Lul. > > Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. > He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, > that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " > correlation does not imply causation " ). If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd realize that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his trepidation about the Copenhagen interpretation "Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt." 1926, letter to Max Born. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/God_does_not_play_dice_with_the_universe "Einstein himself used variants of this quote at other times. For example, in a 1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book Einstein and the Poet, Einstein said: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." (p. 58)" https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#English Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of person you are. Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking the "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700 |
| Subject | God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--6.28pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689815 |
Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! I know Einstein. Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. > > I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. > > GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, > > (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. > > Begging the claim. I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, but the record is less clear, so long ago. > > Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. > > He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, > > that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " > > correlation does not imply causation " ). > > If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd realize > that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his TREPIDATION > about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play Dice"] Yes, you're right, this time. God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). > Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of person you are. > Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking the > "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. I don't want an apology from you, because I know you simply don't care about this topic, not like I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". |
| Message-ID | <fo3e0pFochoU10@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #689821 |
On Sat, 09 Jun 2018 18:28:09 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott... Scott ! ! ! > > I know Einstein. > Like most people, you do not; but that's OK. > > Einstein's "God/Religion" was Mother Nature. > "God" is nature, nothing more, nothing less. > And nature is _not_ a person; Einstein made this abundently clear. > >> > I don't share your obsession with the 19th century. >> > GrecoRoman Diodorus Cronus, circa 300 BCE, >> > (rightly) noted that the future is just as fixed as the past. >> >> Begging the claim. > > I can take it back father, if you'd rather, to China and India, > but the record is less clear, so long ago. > >> > Einstein spent decades arguing _against_ the Copenhagen bullshit. >> > He subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, basically, >> > that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, not complete ( " >> > correlation does not imply causation " ). >> >> If you'd pull your head out of your posterior for a second, you'd >> realize that Einstein's verified quote (supplied below) supports his >> TREPIDATION about the Copenhagen interpretation. ["God Doesn't Play >> Dice"] > > Yes, you're right, this time. > God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". > > Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation > was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". > He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). > >> Apologize or not -- makes no difference, except to show what kind of >> person you are. >> Indeed, one even say that the courage to apologize involves bucking the >> "leastbad" option that you claim is how we work. Can you do it? > > _You_ made the mistake; _you_ don't know Einsein; I do. > I'm the one correcting you, not vice versa. > > I don't want an apology from you, > because I know you simply don't care about this topic, > not like I do. I'd thought Einstein eventually had to admit he was wrong. I guess if he didn't, that's at least twice he was wrong in a big way. Anyway, I'll accept your characterization of Einstein's thought on this -- but I was still correct about the quote, and you should have known it was correct, too. "Fair enough." -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Mark Twain was a determinist. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.9--8.16pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689825 |
> > Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation
> > was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ".
> > He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ).
>
> I'd thought Einstein eventually had to admit he was wrong.
> I guess if he didn't, that's at least twice he was wrong in a big way.
He was not wrong, far from it, but you don't need to know that,
because you're not into PURE science, not like he was.
Most scientists aren't into PURE science, like the was.
Mark Twain was a determinist.
In "The Grand Design", 2010, Stephen Hawking said:
it seems that we are no more than biological machines
and that free will is just an illusion.
> I was correct about the quote,
> and you should have known it was correct, too.
I never objected to the "God doesn't play dice" thing.
I objected to your " [Einstien] had to admit that
the Copenhagen interpretation was MORE ACCURATE
than he was comfortable with " notion.
Einstien subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says,
basically, that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical,
not complete ( " correlation does not imply causation " ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. |
| Message-ID | <BDcTC.339800$DS3.305509@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #689840 |
On 6/9/2018 11:16 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>> Before, you said he " had to admit that the Copenhagen interpretation >>> was MORE ACCURATE than he was comfortable with ". >>> He _never_ did that, far from it ( see above ). >> >> I'd thought Einstein eventually had to admit he was wrong. >> I guess if he didn't, that's at least twice he was wrong in a big way. > > He was not wrong, far from it, but you don't need to know that, > because you're not into PURE science, not like he was. > Most scientists aren't into PURE science, like the was. > > Mark Twain was a determinist. > In "The Grand Design", 2010, Stephen Hawking said: > > it seems that we are no more than biological machines > and that free will is just an illusion. > >> I was correct about the quote, >> and you should have known it was correct, too. > > I never objected to the "God doesn't play dice" thing. > I objected to your " [Einstien] had to admit that > the Copenhagen interpretation was MORE ACCURATE > than he was comfortable with " notion. > > Einstien subscribed to "The Ensemble Interpretation" which says, > basically, that Quantum Mechanics is merely statistical, > not complete ( " correlation does not imply causation " ). > Well Shit! Mark TWain Agrees that Rolf's theories or more exactly his religion is absolutely correct! That sure seems to settle it! About the only thing remaining for this to be "settled science" is a democratic vote of all scientists agreeing with Rolf. Worked for global warming and can work for Rolf! Rolf, did you ever hear of Bell's theorem? Oh that's right you aren't into "pure" science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.10--10.51am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689879 |
You (Ben) asked me: > Have you heard of Bell's theorem ? John Bell _failed_ to solve The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox because " Correlation does not imply causation "; Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. > Oh, that's right, you aren't into "pure" science. You were looking into the mirror, when you wrote that, I assume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. |
| Message-ID | <pawTC.188639$mS3.7637@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #689891 |
On 6/10/2018 1:51 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > You (Ben) asked me: >> Have you heard of Bell's theorem ? > > 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. 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. >> Oh, that's right, you aren't into "pure" science. > > You were looking into the mirror, when you wrote that, > I assume. Rolf you are still an idiot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 09:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--9.20am.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #689997 |
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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 17:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. |
| Message-ID | <4yBTC.340869$DS3.278998@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #690011 |
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]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--2.32pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690084 |
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]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". |
| Message-ID | <fo884sFokapU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #690094 |
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]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:00 -0700 |
| Subject | No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--3.00pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690096 |
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]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. |
| Message-ID | <fo89pvFotjfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #690110 |
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]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 15:27 -0700 |
| Subject | We assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ). |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.11--3.27pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #690112 |
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]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 19:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". |
| Message-ID | <G%DTC.341598$DS3.59869@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #690094 |
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]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web