On Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/14/2024 11:49 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: For Brent: IF, as you acknowledge, that a mystery remains I did NOT acknowledge that. You seem deliberately obtuse. These "mysteries" are "solved" by familiarity. If you feel Bell experiments are mysterious I challenge you to name some possible solution to the mystery. Brent Your words; "I didn't say there's "no mystery". Which is not equivalent to "there is a mystery" except in your unscientific world where there is never suspension of belief. *The contra-positive of your statement "I didn't say there's "no mystery" " is equivalent to, I think, "I said there is a mystery"; or if not, the latter is a reasonable inference. But regardless, you're entitled to a Nobel in the Philosophy of Science, insofar as you invented a new scientific method! Specifically, if you're uncomfortable with interpreting a theory, and later, after thinking about it a lot and becoming comfortable, you can claim the theory is true. Case in point, Bell experiments and the wf for entangled particles, lead some of us to conclude they imply instantaneous action at the distance. We might be mistaken, but thankfully, since you're comfortable with negating this possibility, we can all submit to your COMFORT, or shall we say to your FAMILIARITY, and sleep well. Given the foregoing, you've got a really big set of balls to claim I live in an unscientific world. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. AG * I said we correctly predict every experiment. My point is that there is no more mystery than in say Newtonian gravity. When are you going to answer my question, "What would you consider an answer that eliminates the mystery?" Little green men?" *Oh, I get it. TY. The mysteries are solved by familiarity. IOW, if you look long enough at something you don't understand, the mysteries disappear? * *If you use it enough you absorb the solutions into your intuition. Do you have intuitions about Newtonian gravity? About F=ma? Are they mysterious? How about a little introspection.* *How about ceasing your BS? Familiarly with any theory is hardly a test of its validity. Again, you bring up Newtonian gravity. We became familiar with it only because it's a **weak field approximation to GR and therefore works well within the solar system. And Newton had no clue how it could work instantaneously (which it does not). AG * * Brent * *And if I can't solve the mystery -- possible faster than light behavior -- I'm obtuse. You're in line for a Nobel. Let me be the first to congratulate you. I suggest you go argue with Bruce. IIRC, he thinks QM is non local. AG* -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c80ed080-575b-4204-87c5-cdd5aba9db02n%40googlegroups.com.
