Bruno I stand corrected. You wrote: *"Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning research."* * * I accept math-randomness in form of: *TAKE ANY NUMBER. * Then again I consider 'math' a product of the human mind.
John M On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 08 May 2013, at 17:35, meekerdb wrote: > > On 5/8/2013 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> 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. > > > You assume the collapse of the wave. > > > I don't think that requires a wave function collapse, it's explained by > Everett's MWI also, which is a kind of non-local hidden variable. > > > Why non local? There is nothing non local in Everett's MWI. > > > > > There are experimental evidences against it, and there are no > experimental evidence of any randomness other than some FPI, on the branch > of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp, on arithmetic. > To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion. > > > No it's just the other sect; opposite the one that believes there can be > no randomness. > > > Randomness exists in math. Indeed the vast majority of numbers written in > any base is random (incompressible). But there are no evidence at all of > random 3p phenomenon in nature, and to bet on them seems like abandoning > research. > > > > > It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce > unsolvable problem on purpose. > > > Evidence is always relative to some theory. > > > But no theories suggest 3p randomness in nature. Comp and Everett explains > appearance of randomness, but they are particular case of the FPI, and are > not 3p, only 1p (hopefully plural). > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > > > -- 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.
