I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal' randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such. Even thinking in proper(?) conventional science terms: RANDOM occurrences would eliminate the possibility of sci. prediction and proper conclusions. Agnostic, or not.
To John (Clark)'s PRIVATE(?) question: I stuck my nose into astrology 60+ years ago, for a short while. Numerology was always one of my favorite sources of laughter. My agnosticism is leaning on my successful 38 patents in conventional polymer technology. I developed questions. I did not inform you about these facts to trigger more of your time for my thoughts. John Mikes On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> 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. Believe it, or not, we still hve novelties to get by and they may > change our as-(pre-)sumptions. > > John Mikes > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > there is no random decay or anything else >>> >> >> There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental >> evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that. >> >> > only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation. >>> >> >> And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact >> that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local >> reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because >> a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the >> Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > > -- 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.
