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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
