On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/15/2014 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Hyper determinism makes little sense as a serious theory to me. Why should
> particle properties conform to what a computer's random number generator
> outputs, and then the digits of Pi, and then the binary expansion of the
> square root of 2, all variously as the experimenters change the knobs as to
> what determines the spin axis of the lepton their analyzer measures. Are
> radioactive decays of particles really such things that are governed by the
> behavior of a selected random source, or alternately, are they really such
> things that govern what the digits of Pi or the square root of 2 are?
> They are all part of the same reality.
Are they? Aren't numbers like Pi and sqrt(2) beyond the reality of QM, or
rather, more fundamental than it? The moment you admit numbers like Pi into
your reality, you get much more than just QM.
> You assume its the experimental choice of measurement that determines the
> particles response, but I think the picture is supposed to be that both the
> particle in the experiment and the particles making up the experimenter are
> determined by the same laws.
So how, when using the digits of Pi to decide whether to measure the
x-axis, or the y-axis, does the particle (when it decays), know to have
both electron and positron agree measured on some axis, when that axis is
determined by some relation between a circle and its diameter? Here the
laws involved seemed to go beyond physical laws, it introduces
"mathematical laws", which can selectively be made to control/guide
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.