Re: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'

chris lofting (
Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:08:03 +1000

From: "chris lofting" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: Re: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:08:03 +1000

-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Agassi <>
To: <>;
Date: Sunday, 4 July 1999 3:48
Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'

>> The 'trick' is in the recombination, you are trying to put two things
>> into the same space and that requires reintegration process that
>> is not the
>> same as sticking two parts back together since you can still see the
>> original 'break'; your reintegration attempts are too gross, you
>> are missing
>> something and as such will 'get' interference. (it is a bit like trying
>> put a neutron back together with just the proton and electron -- you are
>> missing the 'glue'.)
>This is non-explanatory. If you can make a particle model that still
>explains the patterns of darkness, you will be world acclaimed.

I'll work on it :-) I think, having read your comments below that you may
need to print out the wave/particle duality email and reflect on it very
carefully. You comment that:

>Is this the one where you listed photon event pairs? I couldn't make any
>sense of it.

This is facinating as so many dont want to! All that the email does is show
you the results of six trials applies to a double slit experiment (or any
other dichotomy-based experiment) where in the first set of six we know
which object goes left or right and in the second trial we do not in that a
degree of indeterminance is introduced.

In all honesty Aaron you do need to review this VERY carfully Why? because
it is NOT about photon pairs in particular it is about ANY pairs, photons,
electrons, cars, planets, ideas etc etc etc It is about the METHOD. Once you
understand it I would expect an email something like:

I am forced to agree with you that ANY emulation of dichotomous thinking
that incorporates indeterminance or equivalence will create implied wave
interference patterns simply because this is a property of the method. This
being the case I agree that ANY experiments (real or imagined) would need to
consider this fact when interpreting the results."

I have not read anywhere of any physicist, philosopher etc etc coming up
with this material simply because none of them have seriously looked at how
we categorise (they have not looked at the neurology/psychology) and so when
they see the results of the experiments they have created they take those
results at face-value; literally rather than considering in detail the
properties of the METHOD that could creep into the interpretations.

If you disagree with the material then prove me wrong. (the material is
pretty plain. It reflects a simple pen and paper exercise which no one seems
to have bothered to do)

I must say that I dont think you will be able to prove me wrong but at least
try since that may help to get the message across!

If you do not understand parts of the post then email it back to me with
comments that I will be happy to respond to.

This is serious stuff Aaron, we are dealing with how we determine 'meaning'
and the affects of our neurology on our interpretations of 'out there'.
Spending some time on that email would be highly beneficial and it can serve
to give you some insights into the illusions we can live under.

then be able to 'review' current interpretations of 'out there' as well as
'in here' and so deal with some of your questions in particular (including
questions re 'scale, levels' etc etc etc.



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)