On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> If there is something to understand about why X happened, if there is a > reason for it, then X is not random. You've got to think what "random" > means.
> > Counter-example: step 3 of UDA. > Bullshit. > You are still stuck by this? > I always get stuck by gibberish, silly homemade acronyms, and circular arguments and personal pronouns with no clear referent. >>Bell proposed an experiment involving the statistical likelihood of a > photon of unknown polarization passing through a polarizing filter set at > various angles. Using nothing but high school algebra and trigonometry he > found a inequality and proved that if it is violated then *at least* one of > the following must be untrue: > > 1) Realism: Things, like the photon, have a definite state even when you >> haven't measured them, you just don't know what it is. >> > 2) Locality: A photon getting through the filter or getting stopped by it >> has something to do with the photon or the filter or both. >> > 3) Determinism: True randomness is impossible. > > > > >there is no non-local influence in the violation of Bell's inequality. > Maybe, if so then things are not realistic or not deterministic or both. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
