OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS  VMS
This is a discussion on OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS  VMS ; On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Arne Vajhøj writes:
> >> AEF wrote:
> >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
...

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > Arne Vajhøj writes:
> >> AEF wrote:
> >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
> >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,
> >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
> >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
> >> very likely.
>
> > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
> > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
> > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.
>
> Not true.
>
> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
> to understand).
>
> Arne
Well, Einstein *was* a key player in bringing about the quantum
theory, including taking photons (quanta of light) seriously (as
Planck was highly reluctant to do: he considered only a useful thing
to get the right black body radiation formula), and being the person
who first suggested the mechanism that makes lasers work. Yet he could
no believe that the uncertainty principle was truly unbeatable and
that causality gave way to true randomness (though the probabilities
of various outcomes are strictly determined by the wave function). He
tried very hard to prove that QM was either incorrect or incomplete,
but as I said in my other post, the case for hidden variables has all
but evaporated in light of new ideas and experiments. And still no one
has found a way around the uncertainty principle. It's pretty damn
solid.
Impossible to understand? QM is quite well understood. The problem is
that most of us will say to ourselves upon learning about the
intrinsic probability built into Nature and the unbelievable
phenomenon of particles interfering with themselves as if they were
waves, "'But how can it be like that?' which is a reflection of
uncontrolled but utterly vain desire to see it in terms of something
familiar." (Quoted from  you guessed it  Chapter 6 of The
Character of Physical Law by Feynman.) The problem is accepting that
causality is lost. No one liked that. But experiment shows otherwise.
As Bohr once told Einstein, "Stop telling God what to do". (I believe
he used the term "God" metaphorically. Einstein saw "God" not as a
personal God as espoused by religions, but revealing Himself through
the harmony of Physical Law, or perhaps one could think of it as
"Nature". I don't know for sure about Bohr's view.)
See Chapter 6 of  you already know it  for a quite nice
explanation of the fundamental mystery in QM. The rest of the book is
excellent, too.
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 9, 5:56 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Mar 8, 6:02 pm, "John Vottero" wrote:
>
>
>
> > "JF Mezei" wrote in message
>
> >news:47d1f21d$0$25450$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > > Last week, I ported from VMS to OSX a small C program that generates
> > > lottery numbers (and postscript which then puts the squares in the right
> > > locations on the forms).
>
> > > Turns out that the Apple random number generator is far better than VMS'
> > > because on the first time I used the Mac generated numbers, I won a
> > > whopping $10 at the lottery. Statistically, my program on a MAC is 100%
> > > succesful at generating a winning number, whereas on VMS it rarely
> > > generated a winning number (and it was just a free ticket :=(
>
> > > So there you go, undeniable proof that Macintosh is better than VMS.
>
> > Many lotteries are run on OpenVMS and when those systems pick the winning
> > numbers, they *ALWAYS* get it right!
>
> The lottery "random number" generators have nothing to do with
> selecting the winners; they generate "quickpick" numbers.
And for that they serve the purpose quite well. In fact, for lotteries
with shared jackpots (are there any other kinds?), this is a good way
to lower your chances of having to share your jackpot winnings with
other winners, assuming you win, of course.
AEF
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 9, 7:15 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
> > "generate" numbers that are truly random.
>
> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
> to be a specific value.
>
> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
> randomness in any seed you would use.
You have to be careful that there aren't some hidden biases in doing
stuff like this, as you yourself point out with one variation.
I don't see how you can beat the ball machine. Like electronic voting,
using a computer to generate winning numbers is problematic. I wonder
how the gov't verifies that electronic slot machines are fair? IIRC,
they somehow check what the chip is doing. I'll have to look into it.
Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
the computer. I'm sure the ball machine is better for lotteries than
computergenerated random numbers.
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
AEF wrote:
> Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
> dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
> sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
> the computer.
I think perhaps the biggest advantage is that it is far easier for
auditors to certify that the draw is truly random with no bias for any
number etc etc.
If the draw is done by computers, it means that auditors have to scan
thorugh not only the code, but also the code management to ensure no
covert code is put into production without anyone knowing.
Drawing by computer also allows speculation that the lottery scans the
list of sold tickets to determine winning numbers. (aka: draw numbers
that will generate one big winner, but not too many lesser prize winners
or vice versa).

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <47d4b1c4$0$1474$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei writes:
> AEF wrote:
>
>> Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
>> dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
>> sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
>> the computer.
>
> I think perhaps the biggest advantage is that it is far easier for
> auditors to certify that the draw is truly random with no bias for any
> number etc etc.
>
> If the draw is done by computers, it means that auditors have to scan
> thorugh not only the code, but also the code management to ensure no
> covert code is put into production without anyone knowing.
Which is pretty much impossible. See: Reflections on Trusting Trust" by
Ken Thompson.
bill

Bill Gunshannon  democracy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton 
Scranton, Pennsylvania  #include

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <9e8ae198931d4702bcfcbcd435058de9@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:
>On Mar 9, 7:15 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
>> > "generate" numbers that are truly random.
>>
>> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
>> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
>> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
>> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
>> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
>> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
>> to be a specific value.
>>
>> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
>> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
>> randomness in any seed you would use.
>
>You have to be careful that there aren't some hidden biases in doing
>stuff like this, as you yourself point out with one variation.
>
>I don't see how you can beat the ball machine. Like electronic voting,
>using a computer to generate winning numbers is problematic. I wonder
>how the gov't verifies that electronic slot machines are fair? IIRC,
>they somehow check what the chip is doing. I'll have to look into it.
>
ERNIE the UK premium bond winner picker is a hardware random number generator
originally using the signal noise from a bank of neon tubes the latest ERNIE
uses thermal noise in transistors see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>Having the ball machine televised at advertised times is also more
>dramatic. And one can see what's going on. No, one can't watch and be
>sure there is no cheating, but you can't see the electrons or bits in
>the computer. I'm sure the ball machine is better for lotteries than
>computergenerated random numbers.
>
>AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 9, 10:46 pm, AEF wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:52 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > > In article <47d35553$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> > > Arne Vajhøj writes:
> > >> AEF wrote:
> > >>> perhaps you could set up a pure random number generator based on
> > >>> radioactive decay or some other random quantum process,
> > >> You can buy hardware cards that provides true random bits. I don't
> > >> know what they use as source. But the stuff you mention sounds
> > >> very likely.
>
> > > Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
> > > "generate" numbers that are truly random. A method must be used to
> > > pick them and that method precludes true randomness.
>
> > Not true.
>
> > Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
> > radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
> > deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
> > guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
> > to understand).
>
> > Arne
> [...]
>
> Impossible to understand? QM is quite well understood. The problem is
Well, I meant that calculating the wave function, and the
probabilities of various outcomes therefrom, is well understood. What
the mystery is that there is no "reasonable" known mechanism that can
produce the randomness part.
In fact, Feynman once said, halfjokingly, "... nobody understands
quantum mechanics". So in that sense, yes, you are right. But how to
do the calculations *is* well understood.
[...]
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
JF Mezei wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>
>>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
>>"generate" numbers that are truly random.
>
>
> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
> to be a specific value.
>
> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
> randomness in any seed you would use.
There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO88591?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
>
> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
> to understand).
Plank.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <47D542AA.5050300@comcast.net>,
"Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
> JF Mezei wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
>>>"generate" numbers that are truly random.
>>
>>
>> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
>> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
>> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
>> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
>> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
>> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
>> to be a specific value.
>>
>> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
>> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
>> randomness in any seed you would use.
>
> There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
> clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
> if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!
And, all of these schemes ignore the fact that if you start with the
same seed they repeat the same sequence. Hardly seems random when
the numbers are generated by a fixed and predictable mathematical
formula. There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe. (Hint:
just because you don't see the pattern or can't determine all of the
root causes doesn't mean it's random.)
bill

Bill Gunshannon  democracy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton 
Scranton, Pennsylvania  #include

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
> seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe.
I agree with this. However, when you bring the word "random" back to
human scale, there is still plenty of stuff that appears "random" to
humans because we cannot predict it.
To a layman, the first signal light he will encounter after exiting a
highway will be "random" between read green or yellow, even though the
light operates on a predictable schedule.
A lottery remain random as long as humans are unable to predict it even
if in theory, it is predictable.
Eisenberg states that the act of looking at something disrupts it. But
if studio lights are already shining on the lottery machine with the
balls in it, having an extra camera with high precision lens some
distance from the machine won't affect the outcome and you might be able
to follow the movement of balls and predict which one is next to come
out. Whether the photons emitted by the balls and machine are absorbed
by a camera or clothing of an audience menber doesn't make much of a
difference to the balls in the machine.
However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 10, 9:26 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <47D542AA.5050...@comcast.net>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
>
>
>
> > JF Mezei wrote:
> >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> >>>Random numbers are a theoretical mathematical concept and nothing can
> >>>"generate" numbers that are truly random.
>
> >> In a situation where a human needs to press a key (or click mouse) to
> >> initiate generation of numbers, then if you use VMS time as a seed, it
> >> would be pretty random since the human's interpretation of time is way
> >> less precise than what VMS does, and as a result, the lowest bytes in
> >> the VMS time would be randomly selected since there would be no way for
> >> a human to press a key at the moment he would want all those nanoseconds
> >> to be a specific value.
>
> >> But if you have a job that automatically generates a random number at
> >> 20:00:00 every friday, I would agree that there would not be much
> >> randomness in any seed you would use.
>
> > There's damned little randomness to be found there!! Remember that the
> > clock is updated every ten milliseconds by adding 10,000,000 (forgive me
> > if I've lost a decimal point somewhere) nanoseconds to the counter!
>
> And, all of these schemes ignore the fact that if you start with the
> same seed they repeat the same sequence. Hardly seems random when
> the numbers are generated by a fixed and predictable mathematical
> formula. There is nothing random in a computer and some of us
> seriously doubt there is any true randomness in the universe. (Hint:
> just because you don't see the pattern or can't determine all of the
> root causes doesn't mean it's random.)
>
> bill
>
> 
> Bill Gunshannon  democracy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> billg...@cs.scranton.edu  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton 
> Scranton, Pennsylvania  #include
There's random, and then there's random. :)
What I mean is this: Is the process random enough for the purposes of
the application? Pseudorandom numbers are very useful for certain
purposes. I used FORTRAN's random function to generate some pseudo
data to test a program I was working on in physics. It worked fine.
Such functions are also useful for the lottery quick pick. Some
applications require higher quality random number sequences. In fact,
back in the early 90's some mathematicians (or physicists) found some
surprise correlated triplets for certain cases involved in Monte Carlo
simulations (that's the physics term for it  see the Wikipedia
article) and for some purposes that would be a bad thing.
Shuffling a deck of cards is a good example here. Are you going to
tell me that shuffling is not random enough to play cards? And if you
knew the initial positions and velocities of a set of dice, you could
in principle predict the outcome. But dice are random enough for board
games and the like, no?
As for "true randomness", yes, many have questioned the validity of QM
for that. Even Einstein, so you're in good company. But it flies in
the face of increasingly compelling evidence to the contrary, that
quantum processes are truly random except that the probability each of
the possible outcomes is given by the wave function which is
calculable via the equations of QM. I venture to guess even Einstein
would have been convinced had he lived long enough to see today.
Please read Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law by Feynman (a
Nobel prize winner for his work on QED) and get back to me. I find
Feynman's argument very compelling. No, it's not absolute proof. You
never get that in science (though would you doubt the reality of
atoms?). But trust me, it looks really, really bad for causality.
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO88591?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
>> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
>> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
>> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
>> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
>> to understand).
>
> Plank.
Max Planck ?
Arne

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 10, 7:26 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
> > In article <47d407a5$0$90274$14726...@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO88591?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
> >> Certain physics stuff are considered true random. Including
> >> radioactivity I believe. Around 1900 the world was considered
> >> deterministic, but then came Einstein, Heissenberg and all those
> >> guys and suddenly the world was random (and impossible
> >> to understand).
>
> > Plank.
>
> Max Planck ?
>
> Arne
Oui. It was he who started it all. He was trying to find a theory to
explain the spectral distribution of black body radiation as a
function of temperature. There were two theories at the time: one
worked at small wavelengths and the other worked at large. He found an
ingenious interpolation between the two but it depended on a parameter
h (Planck's constant) that had a finite value that could be fitted to
the data. Within two months Planck found that he could derive the
formula by assuming that light only comes in packets of energy equal
to the frequency of the light times this constant. But this implied
that light comes in discrete bundles of energy. But everyone "knew"
that light was a wave. This was an extremely radical idea for the
time. Planck argued that for some unknown reason the light was emitted
and absorbed in quanta. (I think I read somewhere that he resisted
this and considered h to be only a useful trick to get the right
equation and that for some reason.) Einstein boldly said that these
quanta of light were real (they are known as photons) and used the
idea of photons to explain the photoelectric effect which cannot be
explained at all by classical physics. Later, the Compton effect
became the most direct evidence for the particle nature of radiation.
In the Compton effect, a photon scatters off of an electron in an atom
and the energy loss of the photon is calculated assuming it is a
simple billiard ball collision. When the energy loss is plugged into
the E = h*frequency equation, you get a lower frequency since the
energy is lower. This lower frequency corresponds to a longer
wavelength and this is in fact observed when gamma rays are scattered
by matter. There was then no doubt that radiation or light (and when a
physicist says light, he means electromagnetic radiation of any
frequency all the way from radio waves to gamma rays) has a particle
nature. Bohr called these dual properties of light "complementarity".
It turns out that matter also exhibits this duality.
Enough physics for now.
AEF

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <47d58fcf$0$1443$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
>
> However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
> the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
> blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
> chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
> rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
> exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
> So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
> movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
> have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.
The random outcome of quantum mechanical behaviour is not a mere
limitation of human capability.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <47d5d18f$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO88591?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= writes:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>>
>> Plank.
>
> Max Planck ?
Yeah, I misspelled it. The "father" of hbar.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 11, 9:23 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <47d58fcf$0$1443$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
>
>
>
> > However, prior to the draw, even if you knew the full configuration of
> > the machine, balls and aerodynamic properties of the chamber and the fan
> > blowing in it, you cannot predict the exact position of the rotating
> > chamber at time of start, the exact time difference between start of
> > rotation and the moment they drop the balls into the chamber, and the
> > exact moment when some human pushes a button to get a ball to come out.
> > So even if physics, aerodynamics and others sciences can explain the
> > movement of balls in the machine, no human has sufficient information to
> > have all the variables and thus, the outcome is random at the human level.
>
> The random outcome of quantum mechanical behaviour is not a mere
> limitation of human capability.
You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
look into the de BroglieBohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
Mechanics.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <960d254f6ae74334ab8ee58e2b1ed...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
>
>
>
> > You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
> > that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
> > resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
> > look into the de BroglieBohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
> > Mechanics.
>
> Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?
I believe that reality does consist of probabilities, but QM math is
vague by design and accepts those probabilities as "good enough"
because in most cases they are.
If you believe that Schrodinger's Cat was really both 1/2 alive and
1/2 dead, then you are welcome to that belief. If you believe that the
cat is either dead or alive and the experiment simply illustrates a
measurement problem, then you're getting closer to what I believe.
I suggest reading what John Bell has said about some of the problems
with QM. If you want to advance further beyond the world of dead
scientists, then read some of the work being done by people who are
still alive and with whom you can actually discuss this.
You're not too far from Rutger's, are you (or am I thinking of someone
else)? Look up Sheldon Goldstein or one of his contemporaries and
discuss it with them if you feel qualified.
You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's,
Bohm's (and other "nonconformist") thoughts are being taken more
seriously these days. You'll just have to look into it yourself. I'm
not going to get into a battle of deadscientists.

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article ,
koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <960d254f6ae74334ab8ee58e2b1ed88c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
>>
>> You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
>> that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
>> resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
>> look into the de BroglieBohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
>> Mechanics.
>
> Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?
I'll bet a lot of people do. When science requires faith than religion
in order to accept that which can neither be observed nor satisfactorily
proven I think more and more people will see the difference.
bill

Bill Gunshannon  democracy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton 
Scranton, Pennsylvania  #include

Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
In article <960d254f6ae74334ab8ee58e2b1ed88c@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips writes:
>
> You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
> that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
> resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
> look into the de BroglieBohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
> Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?