RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'

Aaron Agassi (
Mon, 5 Jul 1999 13:27:35 -0400

From: "Aaron Agassi" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 13:27:35 -0400
In-Reply-To: <008d01beb0f8$a0341b60$6fa86ccb@ddiamond>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf
> Of chris lofting
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:08 AM
> To:;
> Subject: Re: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Agassi <>
> To: <>;
> <>
> Date: Sunday, 4 July 1999 3:48
> Subject: RE: Statistics, wave/particles and 'lies'
> <snip>
> >> The 'trick' is in the recombination, you are trying to put two things
> back
> >> 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
> to
> >> 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!
You may be mistaken. It may actually be annoying for other reasons,
entirely. You may well be projecting your own assumptions in to the results.
You do, I think, start from assumptions. Assumptions not shared by others,
of the value of your work. From this premise, negative response must only be
orthodox resistance. But from the premise that you fall into linguistically
ambiguous writing, the data comes back in an entirely different light.
Often, the linguistically ambiguous is equated with the linguistically
meaningless, and trumped up. Or that glaring flaws are being deliberately
obfuscated. This evokes anger. In any case, bad writing even with no
deceptive intention is quite annoying enough.

>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
Six, what? Noun, please!

This is an example of what I find so annoying about your writing style.

>we know
> which object
Which what? Object is nonspecific. You're doing it again! Many people think
that you do this on purpose. I have entertained the notion, myself.

>goes left or right

>and in the second trial we do not
Do not do what?

> in that a
> degree of indeterminance is introduced.
Megga-huh?! What has indeterminacy to do with what else? What does it mean
to "introduce" indeterminacy?

Just speak English, will you?????????!

> 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:
> "Chris,
> 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."
But this is a perfect example of conjecture on your part, testable only if I
can ever understand your goblty gook.

> 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)
If you are not a complete idiot and charlatan, that what you need is a
dedicated writing coach. Just retreat until you can come back with a clear
linguistic formulation. If you have any respect for science and logic, after
all, then what you need is more respect and capability with linguistic
facility. Start by breaking down your botched sentences into several smaller
ones. Better still, make them questions in a Dialectic. And avoid the usage
of any and all indefinite articles, such as 'it' and 'they'; but rather
spell things out, repeatedly.

> 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.
Let's just start with the comments that I have interjected here, and in
previous emails, into your sentences that I find linguistically

> 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'.
If 'out there' does not mean Ontollogy, then your usage is vague, to me.

> 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.
I'm not going to bother until you bother to clarify those sentences. Got
that? I mean it!

> >From that understanding of the properties of dichotomous analysis we may
> then be able to 'review' current interpretations of 'out there' as well as
> 'in here'
Unless by 'in here' you mean either that aspect of the Phenomena which is
the ongoing simulation of reality, or some scientific model under
consideration, then you are being vague, so far as I can tell.

>and so deal with some of your questions in particular (including
> questions re 'scale, levels' etc etc etc.
Just define your terms.

> 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)