RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'

Aaron Agassi (
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:27:03 -0400

From: "Aaron Agassi" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 09:27:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <004401bec5b8$100e9cc0$90126ccb@ddiamond>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf
> Of Chris Lofting
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 1999 8:57 PM
> To:
> Subject: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <>
> To: <>;
> <>
> Date: Sunday, 4 July 1999 6:26
> Subject: Statistics is a red herring
> >
> >But we don't even need to confirm interference patterns for evidence of
> >light being a wave. There is still the Doppler effect. We can hear the
> >Doppler effect in the changing the pitch of sound emanating from passing
> >vehicles. We can see the Doppler effect observing a moving wave source on
> >the surface of a body of liquid. And we can also measure Red
> Shift and Blue
> >Shift. If light is a wave, then interference patterns are predicted. That
> is
> >why the experiments where ever performed. It was first suggested and
> >forgotten, as a Reductio Ad Absudum. It was carried out, later
> on, in hopes
> >of finding the evidence.
> >
> >Of course, it's not true, or at best not fully understood, that
> light is a
> >wave. Because in other experiments it behaves as a particle.
> >
> Depends on the experiment, the INTENT of the experiment and that
> includes a
> statistical bias that will generate wave patterns since you are viewing
> things GENERALLY rather than in PARTICULAR and the instruments/experiment
> are set up to detect this; they emulate dichotomous thinking and
> as I showed
> in the Wave/Particle Duality post a wave pattern emerges from this process
> regardless of scale or what you are measuring.

Let us apply this to experimental investigation of Gravity:
You would likewise argue that it is intent will generate a statistical bias
to confirm which ever gravitational model is being tested. In short, that it
is the intent of the experimenter which yields results in conformity with
which ever gravitational theory. That it is the intent of the experimenter
that is the reason why the falling object falls at the predicted speed and
acceleration, or follows the predicted trajectory, etc.

Intention (or Telos) alone is not enough to cause anything. The hand that
drops or throws the stone is needed. The stone is needed. The act of
throwing or releasing the stone is crucial. And, finally, Gravity is
necessary. Something about the Universe accounts for the speed,
acceleration, trajectory, etc. Something, whether it's what one thinks that
is, or not. A heavy natural object, falling by accident, quite without any
intention, would also perform consistently.

It must also be noted that falsified gravitational theories fail to generate
a statistical bias such that the desired pattern emerges. Why is this?

And I still doubt that my intention magically causes Red Shift and Blue
Shift, in accordance with the Doppler Effect!

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)