RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'

Aaron Agassi (
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:58:04 -0400

From: "Aaron Agassi" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 12:58:04 -0400
In-Reply-To: <008e01beb0f8$a1517240$6fa86ccb@ddiamond>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf
> Of chris lofting
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:15 AM
> To:;
> Subject: Re: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <>
> To: <>;
> <>
> Date: Sunday, 4 July 1999 11:32
> Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
> <snip>
> >> 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.
> >>
> ><snip>
> >
> >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.
> Intention sets up the method of analysis; intention sees either particles
> (objects) or waves (relationships) and this WILL create the
> structure of the
> results; it will cause patterns to appear that are not necessarily 'out
> there'.
Fine! Explain the Red/Blue shift in non wave terms.

> The gravitational models have biases to either objects
> (gravitons) or waves
> where the latter manifests a relational emphasis - secondaries
> rather than
> primaries.
In fact, it is results different than as predicted, that motivated new
theories. How do you explain the observation of different results from those
which are predicted? A sub concious self destructive intention?

> 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!
> >
> your intention is in the method of interpretation. The problem is that
> interpretations can occur where it is the method that creates the observed
> pattern but this is not realised.
Yes. Happens often. Any explanatory scheme can be self reinforcing. We all
know that. But as for light being supposed to be a wave, this does not come
from statistics, in the first place. It comes, first of all, from the Red
and Blue Shift. Interference patterns do not entirely arise from statistics,
either. The simple fact that light can cast shadows, when split and
recombined, begs some explanation. Got a new one?

You're grasping at straws when you offer, vaguely, that light split apart
doesn't glue back together correctly! After all, why does completely
unrelated light, however "fragmented", blend together with no such artifact?
Doesn't it? Hmm... There's your experiment.

Only lastly, do the shadow patterns in the experiments look just like wave
patterns. Now, you may ask, might such appearance be an artifact of the
experimental Method? In case it is, I offer a simple refutation. Tinker with
the experiment until you get a shadow pattern which is distinctly non-wave
interference. Now, that would be of value. It would either have to be
explained away, or if no such Ad Hock explanation will do, then theory would
have to be revised. Such is progress. To which you do not contribute, so far
as I can see. Or even put faith in.

Experiments have a myriad of pit falls, your hobby horse being only one
among many, and not universal either. It is only any Nihilistic contention
of yours that our poor brains cannot do anything but reflect themselves, all
in vein, that will be controverted. But then, I think even you do assert,
finally, that this does not always happen.

Anything can and does go wrong. But not consistently, either. Hypothesis is
only conjectural. That is why we also need refutations.

So, are you near any systematic Methodology to check for expectation
projection? And will it include any system for then correcting experimental

All science is grounded upon assumptions of one kind or another. But not all
assumptions are equal. The assumption that light is a wave is hardly
arbitrary, given the basic phenomena in need of explanation; need, indeed,
satisfied by the premise. Further statistical wave interference pattern
experiments may well regard wave interference, in the first place, as
established; and then, indeed, interpret it in that context. Indeed,
according to Hypothetico Deductive Method, that is the path that they will
follow, framing further experimentation, until they hit a barrier, as it
where. They haven't, yet. Instead we have another set of entirely consistent
experiments, the results of which conform to a particle model. A new theory
would offer new testable assumptions. Got one? The very first test of an
assumption is that it can be successfully "projected" into an experiment, at
all. You cannot, for example, frame any experiment such that the heavier
object will fall faster than the lighter one, in a vacuum.

The conjectural nature of science allows for objectivity only after the
fact. Such is the Hypothetico Deductive Method. We do begin with
presumptions. It's what we do afterwards that rescues objectivity. But you
make any presumptions at all sound like AIDS, fatal and unshakable! Bacon
had the same feeling.

> Go through the data in the wave/particle duality email. Think about it.
Think about it? I can't even read it! You'll have to just say what you mean.

> best,
> Chris.
> ===============================================================
> 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)
> see:

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)