Brent wrote:

"...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of
 "the rest of the world" is non-local
(i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity..."

EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can
one use such artifact as 'evidence' that "shows..."?
Furthermore: relativity is a (genius) human idea, based on the figment of
the 'physical world' (assumption). Whether something is consistent or
inconsistent with it, is also no 'proof' to be considered in dubious
theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics).
(Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
the focus of my post.)

John M

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker <>wrote:

> John Mikes wrote:
> > Dear Bruno,
> >
> > I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
> > assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
> > beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
> > Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
> > *
> > Bruno quotes in  " -- "  lines, like the starting proposition:
> > "It is because an event can be random or probabilistic..."
> > *
> > "...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
> > experience with a probability "measure"
> > HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2...."
> >
> > Wrong.
> > A "PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It
> > is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the
> > outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the
> > starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.
> Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so that
> it lands heads or tails as he chooses.   Many professional magicians can
> do it to.
>  >
> > To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you
> > identify 'probability'. (I don't).
> > To your evaluating paragraph "Fair Enough": fair enough.
> > That makes my point.
> > *
> > The "experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey" are above my
> > head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even a big
> > genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming AFTER his
> > time.
> > (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)
> >
> > "...Einstein missed comp by its "conventionalist math" blindness
> > perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in computer
> > science. ..."
> >
> > I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to
> > the level of asking resonable questions.
> > I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am
> > further away from your domain to do so.
> >
> > Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.
> >
> > One word of how I feel about probability:
> > In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains
> > for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the item
> > in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond
> > the boundaries of that domain. The "next" occurrence in the future
> > history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past history in
> > our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited into our
> > model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world', so we
> > cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all.
> > Ominscient is different. I am not.
> I think it is an open question whether there is inherent randomness in
> quantum mechanics.  In Bohmian QM the randomness comes from ignorance of
> "the rest of the world".  But the EPR experiments show that this can
> only hold if the influence of  "the rest of the world" is non-local
> (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity.
> Brent
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to