Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA26885 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:35:27 GMT Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:31:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200201252231.g0PMV2d13741@mail3.bigmailbox.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.116) X-Originating-Ip: [126.96.36.199] From: "Joe Dees" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of Superdeterminism Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Philip Jonkers" <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of SuperdeterminismDate: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:51:56 -0900
>> > Nature seems to
>> > be intrinsically indeterministic at small enough scales. Einstein, being
>> > of the last of the scholars of the classical school of physical
>> > couldn't get used to that and a lot still can't, including you
>> Well yes, because i can't understand how you can PROVE that
>> something happened indeterministic. In my eyes, when something
>> appears indeterministic or random it's because we LACK
>> something, measurement tools or knowledge!
>Let me set something straight here. There is no branch of science that can
>go out and prove the correctness of a theory. QM is no different: you can't
>prove whether or not it corresponds exactly to how nature works. The only
>field that can actually prove things is mathematics. Physics makes models of
>the world, and only within the reach of that model can there be certainty as
>which outcomes are possible and with what probability. If we are honest as
>scientists we simply can't say with certainty how nature really works. All
>can do is come up with plausible and possible scenarios and descriptions.
>Experimental tests aimed to confirm a theory not rarely realizes the
>actual rejection of the thesis. All I am saying is that after 75 years of
>such well-aimed life-attempts, it is getting more and more likely that QM
>actually gives a correct description of nature in its smallest of being.
>There have been many attempts to prove the incompleteness of QM. The most
>well known candidates are called Hidden Variable theories which have
>deterministic postulates. All have been refuted however.
true enough; assuming the universal ubiquity of superdeterminism in contradistinction to available quantum evidence is intransigent religion, not enlightened science.
>This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 26 2002 - 01:59:49 GMT