On 5/7/2013 1:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
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
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.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.