On 5/7/2013 1:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
John Clark:
the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative you submit. Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon presumptions believed to be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in conventional science. I would love to learn from you (and others) if your post is reasonable and meaningful. No 'feelings', please.

Bell's inequality is within the EPR assumption (pardon me: thought experiment). The consequences are well thought of. Math-phys predictions and conclusions ditto. Conventional science is a useful practicality (almost true, that almost works well with some mishaps and some later corrections).
After 1/2 century successfully working within it I arrived at my agnostic 
stance.

But your stance seems anything but agnostic when it comes to inherent randomness. You seem to know in your heart that such a thing cannot be.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to