OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS

This is a discussion on OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS - VMS ; In article , billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: > In article , > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes: >> In article , Doug Phillips writes: >>> >>> You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean >>> that the mathematics ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

  1. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <63o0q8F27i0npU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    > In article ,
    > koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >> In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed88c@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.
    >


    All of the predictions of quantum mechanics have been observed and
    verified many times. If they weren't the fellow who observed the
    failure would get the Nobel Prize.


  2. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.


    I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..."

    Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
    evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
    faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.

    [1] See http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html (Mostly a good article,
    but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)

    As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that
    only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these
    out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been
    done and QM always, always wins. We're not talking about the
    possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics
    who complained that the early experiments could still allow local
    hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said
    detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been
    greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped
    out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue.
    There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using
    local hidden variables.

    If you would learn about this, you would probably slowly begin to
    realize that there is no way out. It is getting to the point where
    insisting there must be determinism somehow being hidden behind the
    veil of probability is akin to denying the existence of atoms. Do you
    deny the existence of atoms? If so, why; and if not, why not?

    I used to be on the deterministic side. I even tried to concoct an
    explanation for polarization experiments to show how determinism could
    still prevail, but I quickly found my analysis to be flawed.

    The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
    the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
    hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
    wrote about it. That's hardly the same.

    AEF

    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (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



  3. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 11:35 am, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > 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 Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
    > Mechanics.


    It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by
    this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article
    about it and got zero hits.

    The theory attempts to show that particles have definite positions and
    velocities even during their wave-like interactions. But these are
    unobservable and still are subject to random movement. The theory,
    AFAICT, attempts to restore "realism". But I have become a positivist
    -- one who says that if it can't be observed, what does it matter. QM
    is astonishingly successful in predicting what we can measure. What
    happens in between -- what does it matter? I like to bring up the idea
    of parallel universes that never interact with ours so we can never
    observe any effects of them. If there are no testable predictions, one
    can't check it anyway, so why bother? (Reminds me of string theory!)

    AEF

  4. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    >
    > Koehler) wrote:
    > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.


    QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so
    are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom.

    >
    > 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, for one, do not believe the cat is half dead or half alive. The cat
    is a macroscopic object. But when a particle (be it a photon,
    electron, or what have you) passes through a microscopic double slit
    when the appartus is set up in a way that produces an interference
    pattern, it is as if it passes through both slits at the same time.
    Such superpositions of even atoms have been achieved within the last
    few years or so (maybe even a decade or more -- time passes so fast as
    you age!).

    >
    > 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.


    OK. Can you suggest specific references?

    >
    > 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 mean pay him a visit?

    >
    > You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's,
    > Bohm's (and other "non-conformist") 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 dead-scientists.


    Really? I don't see how in light of increasingly better experiments,
    in particular, the GHZ experiment.

    AEF

  5. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 6:20 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article <63o0q8F27i0n...@mid.individual.net>, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    > > In article ,
    > > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > >> In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.

    >
    > All of the predictions of quantum mechanics have been observed and
    > verified many times. If they weren't the fellow who observed the
    > failure would get the Nobel Prize.


    Exactly. Almost all of our modern technology wouldn't work otherwise.
    Transistors and lasers come to mind. Especially lasers. The idea of
    the laser is very, very QM. In fact, the idea was so strange that
    Einstein -- the one who first came up with the idea of spontaneous
    emission -- found it so strange that even he hesitated to tell anyone
    (or so I recall -- I could be wrong on this). Also, the photoelectric
    effect, black body radiation, the stability of atoms, Compton
    scattering, and many other phenomena are completely unexplainable
    without QM. In fact, classical physics (pre-quantum, or pre-1900),
    predicts completely different things. According to electromagnetic
    theory, electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus theory would radiate.
    This would cause the electrons to lose energy and thereby spiral into
    the nucleus in about 10**(-10) seconds (one-tenth of a billionth of a
    second). QM saves the day. Classical theory predicts completely
    different results for the other phenomena I mentioned.

    Additionally, there are paradoxes in statistical physics such as the
    Rayleigh-Jeans law for the energy density of electromagnetic radiation
    in thermal equilibrium is predicted to be infinite when summed up over
    all possible frequencies! And then there's the Gibbs paradox. QM comes
    to the rescue for both.

    Please read Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law (it's not a
    difficult read) and let me know if you can find any fault with
    Feynman's argument against hidden variable theories. If you don't want
    to splurge the $16 for the book, please watch part I of the 1979
    Feynman lecture in Aukland as he shows that photons reflect
    probabilistically off of glass and water.

    AEF

    AEF

  6. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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 | de-moc-ra-cy (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


    Just one more word on this:

    Yes, it is true that no theory can be proved 100% correct. A theory
    can only be proved wrong. But in some cases, the evidence is so
    compelling that, for all practical purposes, it becomes accepted fact.
    Consider atomic theory. Do you doubt that ordinary matter is made of
    atoms? It took a lot of work to show that this was the case. The
    clincher was the discovery of Brownian motion and the explanation of
    it given by Einstein in 1905. After that, very few scientists doubted
    the reality of atoms (because there was no other reasonable way to
    explain the phenomenon).

    Other parts of science are less certain -- mostly the frontiers on the
    cutting edge of research. And it is good that people are skeptical
    here. As Feynman says in the book I've been referencing over and over:
    "... we are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible,
    because only in that way can we find progress." For example, is CPT
    really a true, never-violated symmetry in nature?

    [Slight digression -- an explanation of CPT: It was once thought that
    parity (P) was conserved (not proved, but it was a quite reasonable
    conjecture at the time), but certain reactions involving the weak
    nuclear force violated it (kaon decay), sometimes even to the maximum
    possible extent (beta decay). Then it was postulated that CP (charge
    conjugation and parity together) was conserved, but the weak force
    violated even that in some other reactions (I think involving
    particles containing bottom quarks). So now time reversal (T, which
    was also thought to be conserved separately) was added and now it is
    thought that all three together (CPT) is conserved in all possible
    cases, and so far no one has seen any violations, but one day maybe
    someone will find one.]

    But would you doubt that there are eight planets orbiting a very hot
    sun? Do you doubt that we live on the third planet from the sun? I bet
    not. Some things like the speed-of-light barrier, and the existence of
    atoms, are all but beyond any doubt. QM seems to be in the same camp,
    along with its lack of determinism (note that the wave function *is*
    deterministic). The odds of a reversal in these cases is akin to
    winning the jackpot in the lottery. That is why people like Bob
    Koehler and me write what we write with such confidence on this topic.

    Please read The Character of Physical Law. It is an absolutely
    brilliant book, and even as a Ph.D. in physics I have learned much
    from it.

    AEF

  7. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 8:16 pm, AEF wrote:
    [...]
    > Please read Chapter 6 of The Character of Physical Law (it's not a
    > difficult read) and let me know if you can find any fault with
    > Feynman's argument against hidden variable theories. If you don't want
    > to splurge the $16 for the book, please watch part I of the 1979
    > Feynman lecture in Aukland as he shows that photons reflect
    > probabilistically off of glass and water.


    You can find the video at www.feynman.com.

    >
    > AEF
    >
    > AEF



  8. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >In article <63o0q8F27i0npU1@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >> In article ,
    >> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>> In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed88c@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.
    >>

    >
    > All of the predictions of quantum mechanics have been observed and
    > verified many times. If they weren't the fellow who observed the
    > failure would get the Nobel Prize.
    >

    And many did over the years as the theory evolved from non-relativistic QM to
    quantum field theories such as QED which incorporate special relativity.
    Similarly GR and relativistic QM are not compatible and hence we know that
    QM is not an accurate representation of reality.
    So yes definitely reality differs.


    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University




  9. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article , AEF writes:
    >On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >>
    >> > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.

    >
    >I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..."
    >
    >Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
    >evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
    >faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.
    >
    >[1] See http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html (Mostly a good article,
    >but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)
    >
    >As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that
    >only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these
    >out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been
    >done and QM always, always wins.


    This is a strawman since there are non-local hidden variable theories.

    >We're not talking about the
    >possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics
    >who complained that the early experiments could still allow local
    >hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said
    >detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been
    >greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped
    >out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue.
    >There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using
    >local hidden variables.
    >

    These experiments rule out local realistic theories.
    This just leaves two choices

    1) non-locality

    or

    2) non-realism

    To my mind the latter doesn't actually make much sense. If the wave function
    doesn't actually have a physical existence and a particle doesn't have any
    properties until you measure them then how are entangled particles actually
    linked. (If the wave function does physically exist then it's collapse will be
    a non-local effect so such versions of the Copenhagen interpretation are
    non-local).

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University



    >If you would learn about this, you would probably slowly begin to
    >realize that there is no way out. It is getting to the point where
    >insisting there must be determinism somehow being hidden behind the
    >veil of probability is akin to denying the existence of atoms. Do you
    >deny the existence of atoms? If so, why; and if not, why not?
    >
    >I used to be on the deterministic side. I even tried to concoct an
    >explanation for polarization experiments to show how determinism could
    >still prevail, but I quickly found my analysis to be flawed.
    >
    >The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
    >the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
    >hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
    >wrote about it. That's hardly the same.
    >
    >AEF
    >
    >>
    >> bill
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (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

    >


  10. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f4ff@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:
    >
    > It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by
    > this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article
    > about it and got zero hits.


    I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum
    mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic.


  11. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article ,
    koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f4ff@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:
    >>
    >> It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by
    >> this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article
    >> about it and got zero hits.

    >
    > I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum
    > mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic.


    What do you mean? If it's on the INTERNET it has to be true.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (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

  12. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    "AEF" wrote in message news:d605f298-85d8-491f-aeb7-3ba58aa7ac8c@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > ...
    >
    > Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
    > evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
    > faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.
    >
    > [1] See http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html (Mostly a good article,
    > but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)


    It seems you suggest that scientists and religious people are different.
    However, there are many religious scientists.

    Of course our own faith is not blind faith, only the faith of others is.

    > ...
    >
    > The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
    > the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
    > hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
    > wrote about it. That's hardly the same.


    You just ignore all other evidence for religious faith.
    That makes it easier to call it blind faith.

    Of course the evidence we use counts, the evidence that other people use doesn't.
    You ignore that even today many people interact with God.
    If you can't see God, who is blind?




  13. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    Back to my original post.

    Last week, I ran my lottery generator for first time on a Mac and won $10.

    I used that $10 to buy 5 lottery tickets (also generated by the same
    program).

    2 of those tickets generated free tickets.
    2 of those tickets generated $10.00

    so 4 of 5 tickets were winners this week.

    When I bragged about the Mac being better than VMS at generating winning
    numbers, I didn't (seriously) think it would repeat itself... This is
    almost creepy :-) :-)


    After doubling the sample size (from 1 draw to 2 draws :-), I still have
    a 100% success rate at generating a winning ticket each draw :-) :-)

  14. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote:
    > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > > Koehler) wrote:
    > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.

    >
    > QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so
    > are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom.
    >
    >


    I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to
    address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread
    (and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the
    bottom.)

    I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the
    ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated
    elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might
    already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems
    you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have
    previously dismissed them as garbage.

    Papers regarding GHZ

    http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102

    http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21

    There are of course other papers suggesting how hidden-variables could
    exist within the GHZ experiment, and I don't know whether the above
    are the best or not. Following this stuff is much harder than it once
    was (it isn't like riding a bicycle, I guess) and I really don't have
    that time to waste.

    Related reading:

    Science Daily article

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0209184415.htm

    which references this paper on Canonical Typicality:

    http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/can.pdf

    and Bohmian Mechanics;

    first, an intro with some J.S.Bell quotes:

    http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html

    the links at the bottom lead to here:

    http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstei...s/qts/qts.html

    and here

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv

    Sheldon Goldstein seems to be the most staunch supporter and prolific
    writer on the subject. The last I knew he was still alive. Whether
    this theory describes how things really work or not, who knows? The
    point is that there are other possibilities that can agree with
    experimental results as well as QM, but disagree with some basic
    assumptions of QM.

    A point I do agree with you on is that for all practical purposes, QM
    has so far proven to be "close enough." So, until QM fails, any other
    work is just science done for the sake of gaining understanding -- and
    who cares about that;-)

    Can we please put this to rest here in c.o.v.? I would have sent this
    to you off-line but I don't know if you ever check your spamsink
    address or if it's even real. I check my throw-aways (like this one)
    weekly or so to clean them out; if I do find real messages there, I
    read and usually respond if I notice them and recognize the subject/
    author and it isn't just a flame.

    <==NO NEW CONTENT HAS BEEN ADDED BELOW THIS LINE===>

    >
    > > 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, for one, do not believe the cat is half dead or half alive. The cat
    > is a macroscopic object. But when a particle (be it a photon,
    > electron, or what have you) passes through a microscopic double slit
    > when the appartus is set up in a way that produces an interference
    > pattern, it is as if it passes through both slits at the same time.
    > Such superpositions of even atoms have been achieved within the last
    > few years or so (maybe even a decade or more -- time passes so fast as
    > you age!).
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > OK. Can you suggest specific references?
    >
    >
    >
    > > 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 mean pay him a visit?
    >
    >
    >
    > > You might find that Schrodinger's, Einstein's, Bell's, de Broglie's,
    > > Bohm's (and other "non-conformist") 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 dead-scientists.

    >
    > Really? I don't see how in light of increasingly better experiments,
    > in particular, the GHZ experiment.
    >
    > AEF



  15. Re: OT: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    In article <47D7F866.6060900@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >
    > Err. . . . What could "casino security" do about it? Ask them to
    > leave? Seems to me that a casino is a "place of public accomodation"
    > and they might have a little legal trouble if anybody cared to push the
    > issue!


    Casinos can and do ban playing by folks who are known to regularly
    beat the house, typically by card counting.

    Of course, many of the most profitable games don't have cards to
    count. Those which do change the shoe often so as to disrupt all
    but the best card counters.


  16. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 12, 9:14 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    Koehler) wrote:
    > In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by
    > > this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article
    > > about it and got zero hits.

    >
    > I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum
    > mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic.


    Yeah, but I don't think this article is that bad. And it agrees with
    what I've read before in "The Quantum Physicists" by Cropper. The
    theory doesn't address randomness. It addresses what the particle is
    doing between observations. In a figure in the book it shows an
    electron taking a random jagged path through the two-slit apparatus.
    (pp. 134, 135). My contention is that it is pointless to speculate
    about such things if you can't observe it or any effects of it.

    Yeah, some Wikipedia articles are pretty awful, but I don't think this
    is one of them.

    AEF

    AEF


  17. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 12, 8:11 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > In article , AEF writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > >> In article ,
    > >> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:

    >
    > >> > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.

    >
    > >I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..."

    >
    > >Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
    > >evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
    > >faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.

    >
    > >[1] Seehttp://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html(Mostly a good article,
    > >but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)

    >
    > >As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that
    > >only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these
    > >out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been
    > >done and QM always, always wins.

    >
    > This is a strawman since there are non-local hidden variable theories.
    >
    > >We're not talking about the
    > >possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics
    > >who complained that the early experiments could still allow local
    > >hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said
    > >detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been
    > >greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped
    > >out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue.
    > >There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using
    > >local hidden variables.

    >
    > These experiments rule out local realistic theories.
    > This just leaves two choices
    >
    > 1) non-locality
    >
    > or
    >
    > 2) non-realism


    But what about Feynman's argument?

    All these things combined (which includes stuff I don't have time to
    document here) leads me to believe that there is almost certainly no
    way out.

    >
    > To my mind the latter doesn't actually make much sense. If the wave function


    What makes sense is not as important as experimental results. See, you
    know the drill (Beginning of Chapter 6 and parts of Chapter 7).

    > doesn't actually have a physical existence and a particle doesn't have any
    > properties until you measure them then how are entangled particles actually
    > linked. (If the wave function does physically exist then it's collapse will be
    > a non-local effect so such versions of the Copenhagen interpretation are
    > non-local).


    I think the realism quandary is a red herring. QM tells you what you
    will observe and that is what you observe.

    As for the "collapse of the wave function" I think of it more as
    "altered". The experimenter becomes part of the system.

    AEF

    >
    > David Webb
    > Security team leader
    > CCSS
    > Middlesex University
    >
    > >If you would learn about this, you would probably slowly begin to
    > >realize that there is no way out. It is getting to the point where
    > >insisting there must be determinism somehow being hidden behind the
    > >veil of probability is akin to denying the existence of atoms. Do you
    > >deny the existence of atoms? If so, why; and if not, why not?

    >
    > >I used to be on the deterministic side. I even tried to concoct an
    > >explanation for polarization experiments to show how determinism could
    > >still prevail, but I quickly found my analysis to be flawed.

    >
    > >The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
    > >the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
    > >hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
    > >wrote about it. That's hardly the same.

    >
    > >AEF

    >
    > >> bill

    >
    > >> --
    > >> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (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



  18. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 12, 9:32 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    >
    > > In article <969c8266-38a4-4a80-a9f4-711e65b0f...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AEF writes:

    >
    > >> It seems to me that the apparent randomness isn't really addressed by
    > >> this theory. In fact, I searched for "random" in the Wikipedia article
    > >> about it and got zero hits.

    >
    > > I don't think Wiki has been vetted as The Source on quantum
    > > mechanics, the meaning of random, or any other topic.

    >
    > What do you mean? If it's on the INTERNET it has to be true.


    I referred to an article, not the Internet. Yes, even Wikipedia has
    some awful articles, but this is not one of them. I also know of the
    Bohm interpretation from "The Quantum Physicists" by William H.
    Cropper. But you could also say "If it's published in a book, it has
    to be true". And there's certainly lots of garbage in many books. Set
    the bar high enough and you can't say anything, including what you
    just said.

    AEF

    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (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



  19. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 12, 4:16 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > On Mar 11, 8:03 pm, AEF wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mar 11, 1:14 pm, Doug Phillips wrote:
    > > > On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
    > > > Koehler) wrote:
    > > > > In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@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 Broglie-Bohm 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.

    >
    > > QM math is not vague. The wave functions are well determined and so
    > > are the probabilities for the various outcomes therefrom.

    >
    > I'll reply here, once, against my better instincts, and hope to
    > address most of the questions/points you directed at me in this thread
    > (and the rest of your post which content I've left intact at the
    > bottom.)
    >
    > I don't claim any special understanding or adherence to any of the
    > ideas presented by the following references. Most have been debated
    > elsewhere and google should find some of the discussions. You might
    > already be completely familiar with all of them, anyway, but it seems
    > you're not from what you've said -- or if you are maybe you have
    > previously dismissed them as garbage.
    >
    > Papers regarding GHZ
    >
    > http://eprintweb.org/S/article/quant-ph/0007102
    >
    > http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/un/Unnikrishnan/21
    >
    > There are of course other papers suggesting how hidden-variables could
    > exist within the GHZ experiment, and I don't know whether the above
    > are the best or not. Following this stuff is much harder than it once
    > was (it isn't like riding a bicycle, I guess) and I really don't have
    > that time to waste.


    Frankly, I find it hard to believe. I personally checked out the
    relevant equations in another paper and there is no way to assign
    values to the spins to avoid the randomness. I look at these perhaps
    this weekend when I have more time.

    >
    > Related reading:
    >
    > Science Daily article
    >
    > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0209184415.htm
    >
    > which references this paper on Canonical Typicality:
    >
    > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/can.pdf
    >
    > and Bohmian Mechanics;
    >
    > first, an intro with some J.S.Bell quotes:
    >
    > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html
    >
    > the links at the bottom lead to here:
    >
    > http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstei...s/qts/qts.html
    >
    > and here
    >
    > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv


    Well, it's going to take a while for me to get to all these refs!

    >
    > Sheldon Goldstein seems to be the most staunch supporter and prolific
    > writer on the subject. The last I knew he was still alive. Whether
    > this theory describes how things really work or not, who knows? The
    > point is that there are other possibilities that can agree with
    > experimental results as well as QM, but disagree with some basic
    > assumptions of QM.


    Probably by speculating on what happens between observations, which
    you can't check, and is therefore not relevant.
    >
    > A point I do agree with you on is that for all practical purposes, QM
    > has so far proven to be "close enough." So, until QM fails, any other
    > work is just science done for the sake of gaining understanding -- and
    > who cares about that;-)


    Even if it fails to be exact, certain aspects will survive. NASA still
    uses Newtonian gravity to calculate orbits. There is no need to use GR
    for that. Classical Mechanics is still used to build bridges and other
    macroscopic stuff. Only when you get to lasers and electronics and
    some other stuff do you need QM. Electromagnetic theory is fine at the
    macroscopic level, except for lasers, which work at an atomic scale.

    >
    > Can we please put this to rest here in c.o.v.? I would have sent this
    > to you off-line but I don't know if you ever check your spamsink
    > address or if it's even real. I check my throw-aways (like this one)


    It's real and I do check it. I try to check it at least once a week.

    > weekly or so to clean them out; if I do find real messages there, I
    > read and usually respond if I notice them and recognize the subject/
    > author and it isn't just a flame.
    >
    > <==NO NEW CONTENT HAS BEEN ADDED BELOW THIS LINE===>


    AEF
    [...]

  20. Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

    On Mar 12, 11:16 am, "Fred Zwarts" wrote:
    > "AEF" wrote in messagenews:d605f298-85d8-491f-aeb7-3ba58aa7ac8c@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > > ...

    >
    > > Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
    > > evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
    > > faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.

    >
    > > [1] Seehttp://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html(Mostly a good article,
    > > but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)

    >
    > It seems you suggest that scientists and religious people are different.
    > However, there are many religious scientists.


    I find that many people somehow compartmentalize their brains to
    accommodate both. If religion is pounded into your head from birth,
    many find it hard to escape, or find it comforting and can't stand to
    let go.

    >
    > Of course our own faith is not blind faith, only the faith of others is.


    You obviously missed my point. Did you read my randi.org reference?

    I find it interesting that many religious people try to convince the
    non-religious through evidence, but their evidence is not convincing.
    This evidence is good enough for them. So who has faith in evidence
    now?

    Studies have been done to see if praying for the sick works. I heard
    it was found that those prayed for actually fared a little worse! It
    was probably within the margin of error, and so was not statistically
    significant. Few people were prayed for more than Princess Di, and
    look what happened to her.

    Please read the randi.org reference and other fine stuff on his Web
    site. Take his million dollar challenge if you think you can prove
    that some god exists. No religious person or "psychic" or others who
    claim they can do paranormal things have accepted the challenge. Those
    few who have accepted have been found to be frauds.

    >
    > > ...

    >
    > > The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
    > > the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
    > > hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
    > > wrote about it. That's hardly the same.

    >
    > You just ignore all other evidence for religious faith.
    > That makes it easier to call it blind faith.


    Nonsense. What evidence are you talking about? The Bible? That's
    evidence?

    >
    > Of course the evidence we use counts, the evidence that other people use doesn't.
    > You ignore that even today many people interact with God.


    No they don't.

    > If you can't see God, who is blind?


    I have a retort to this, but I'll bite my tongue.

    AEF

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast