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

Groups > sci.physics > #701081 > unrolled thread

A robot might select an apple over an orange...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A robot might select an apple over an orange... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-09-04 08:12 -0700
    Asking 5 liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-09-04 09:03 -0700
      Re: Asking 5 liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not. % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 09:05 -0700
    Re: A robot might select an apple over an orange... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-09-04 11:25 -0700
      There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ). Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-09-04 12:46 -0700
        Re: There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ). "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:33 -0700
          Re: There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ). "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-06 21:29 -0700

#701081 — A robot might select an apple over an orange...

A robot might select an apple over an orange,
but that doesn't mean it has "free will" ("the uncaused cause").

We're consumption machines, exploiting a niche,
(poorly) programmed by nature to take a LessBad "option".

We call ourselves "consumers" and the GDP measures our progress.

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

  Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

Once the cards are all dealt, and the dice stop rolling,
and the bets are paid out, the "probability wave" has collapsed.

The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:

  It's an _ Ensemble of tests, a series, not just one test,
  like a pollster, asking _ 5 people if they'll vote for Hillary or not.

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 ).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#701086 — Asking 5 liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not.

     Correction...
Bell's Theorem is an ensemble of tests, a series, not just one test...
like a pollster, asking 5 _ liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not.

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

#701087 — Re: Asking 5 liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not.

On 2018-09-04 9:03 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>       Correction...
> Bell's Theorem is an ensemble of tests, a series, not just one test...
> like a pollster, asking 5 _ liars if they'll vote for Hillary or not.
> 
hillary isn't even running

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

#701102

On 9/4/18 8:12 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> A robot might select an apple over an orange,
> but that doesn't mean it has "free will" ("the uncaused cause").

How is an "uncaused cause" different from randomness?

> We're consumption machines, exploiting a niche,
> (poorly) programmed by nature to take a LessBad "option".
> 
> We call ourselves "consumers" and the GDP measures our progress.
> 
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me:
> 
>    Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.
> 
> Once the cards are all dealt, and the dice stop rolling,
> and the bets are paid out, the "probability wave" has collapsed.
> 
> The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:
> 
>    It's an _ Ensemble of tests, a series, not just one test,
>    like a pollster, asking _ 5 people if they'll vote for Hillary or not.
> 
> 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 ).
> 


-- 
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]

#701117 — There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ).

> > A robot might select an apple over an orange,
> > but that doesn't mean it has "free will" ("the uncaused cause").
> 
> How is an "uncaused cause" different from randomness?

There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ).

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

  Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

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

#701437 — Re: There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ).

On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:46:13 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > > A robot might select an apple over an orange,
> > > but that doesn't mean it has "free will" ("the uncaused cause").
> > 
> > How is an "uncaused cause" different from randomness?
> 
> There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ).
> 
> All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me:
> 
>   Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

See how clever we made robots he likes apples best.My robot would like MSP over carrots.My robot would build my barrel boat,and save children in floods.Bert

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

#701497 — Re: There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause" ( free will ).

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"My robot would like "My Stupid Palaver" ( = MSP)" Bert
 "My robot would build my barrel boat" Bert... while
< https://tinyurl.com/Trump-is-walking-all-over-Bert>

>
>

<snicker>-<chuckle>-<chortle>- ROTFLMAO.  "O ya"

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web