On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

## Advertising

> On 1/15/2014 11:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > Of course QM is just a model of how we think the world works...like > arithmetic is a model of countable things. Neither one is *reality*. > > > > >> 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 > physics.. > > > They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment > you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical > instantiation as calculated in the registers of a computer or written ink > on a page. > And what is the physical link between the computer's registers and the radioactive decay? What keeps it from breaking down in the next moment? If all that information has to be assumed at the start, there's no reason an equally big description would be any less likely, and thus there is no reason it shouldn't diverge from our expectations in the next second. (Also, I would say they do come from Platonia, in that the platonic properties of Pi (which the computer is inspecting and reporting) prevents the computer from outputting the digits of some other number. Consider that the numbers of Pi go on forever and have an infinite expansion, but there is no physical way to realize that expansion. In that sense, the digits of Pi transcends our own physics and must be outside/beyond it.) Jason -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.