Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
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. 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. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem on purpose. Bruno 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 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. 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Dear Stephen, On 07 May 2013, at 22:59, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in agreement with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate better with you. Thanks for telling Stephen. Bruno On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon between Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as Neoplatonism announces a coming back to Pythagorean ontology. One of the Enneads of Plotinus, On Numbers is a crazily deep analysis of the role of numbers in theology. This one? Marchal B., 2007, A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus' Theory of Matter Yes. Theology is just the science of everything, which by definition includes God and Santa Klaus. A statement saying that such or such God does not exist is a theological statement. It is just my agnosticism which make me use the term in the most general sense. Then, in the frame of this or that hypothesis, we can get such or such precisions. I like how you explain it. From a pure marketing standpoint, you might avoid a lot of unnecessary intellectual resistance by using a different term. On the other hand, some of your colourful personality would not come through, so who am I to say... Lol ... I can understand. But the resistance is both more superficial (and boring), but has some deep aspect, and using the word theology has helped me to make that clear. In fact I have been encouraged to use the word theology because it makes things clearer, and it was well seen in my university (based on free-exam). I got problem, unrelated to this, and I have been proposed to defend the work in France, and there, I have been asked to remove anything referring to theology. In particular I have used the term psychology in place of theology, but this has led to other confusion, and an even greater resistance, making me realize the existence of a fundamentalist atheism. The main advantage of using the term theology is to prevent the reductionist interpretation of mechanism, and it is a way to recall that science has not yet decide between Plato and Aristotle, which proposes deeply different view on everything, including the type of God rationally possible. Eventually it made me realize that atheism is really a slight variant of christianism, when you compare to Plato. Of course some atheists can be uneasy with this, but then it means that they are not aware of the mind-body problem. I thought, perhaps naively, that most scientist where aware that science was deeply agnostic, and that if we do research on the mind- body problem, such agnosticism was the key to make progress. Eventually I understood that the Platonist conception of reality is deeply hidden in our culture, and that atheists are much more opposed to it than most intellectual having has some confessional religious background (something which has astonished me, but confirmed everyday since). This made atheism *theologically* more flawed than christianism. Now, from a computer science view, theology is just what is true about machine. We know that this is bigger than what the machine can prove, and that is enough from a clear definition standpoint. The original term was biology, but this led to confusion too. Since a long time, I read hundred of theologians from different confession and religion, and well, it fits remarkably with the subject, and with what I am talking about. And it is quite interesting to compare machine's theology (and machine's science) with the different existing religions. I tend to believe that most non natural human suffering comes from that sad fact: the withdrawal of theology as a science, and its political institutionalization. Many fundamentalism would not exist, especially the atheist one, with which I have been confronted even without knowing that. Of course this doe not concern the agnostic atheism as the word can sometimes have a larger (but confusing) meaning. In fact I call that theology, because it *is* theology. It concerns afterlife, the soul, the origin of realities, the existence of divine (non Turing emulable) entities, gods and goddesses, etc... and I am all against introducing new words when older words already exist, because that create big and unnecessary confusions. It helps also to refer to the theology of the Platonists and Neoplatonists. I read quite remarkable book on that subject. I am aware some resistance can come from the use of that word, but it seems to me the advantages, notably clarity, are more numerous than the disandvantages. I might be wrong, but I am not yet
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Dear Stephen, On 07 May 2013, at 22:59, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in agreement with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate better with you. Thanks for telling Stephen. Bruno On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon between Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as Neoplatonism announces a coming back to Pythagorean ontology. One of the Enneads of Plotinus, On Numbers is a crazily deep analysis of the role of numbers in theology. This one? Marchal B., 2007, A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus' Theory of Matter Yes. Theology is just the science of everything, which by definition includes God and Santa Klaus. A statement saying that such or such God does not exist is a theological statement. It is just my agnosticism which make me use the term in the most general sense. Then, in the frame of this or that hypothesis, we can get such or such precisions. I like how you explain it. From a pure marketing standpoint, you might avoid a lot of unnecessary intellectual resistance by using a different term. On the other hand, some of your colourful personality would not come through, so who am I to say... Lol ... I can understand. But the resistance is both more superficial (and boring), but has some deep aspect, and using the word theology has helped me to make that clear. In fact I have been encouraged to use the word theology because it makes things clearer, and it was well seen in my university (based on free-exam). I got problem, unrelated to this, and I have been proposed to defend the work in France, and there, I have been asked to remove anything referring to theology. In particular I have used the term psychology in place of theology, but this has led to other
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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. Hi Bruno, You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences against it, Could you elaborate? 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. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem on purpose. This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least some form of many-worlds. True randomness strikes me as an euphemism for magic. Telmo. Bruno 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 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. 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
2013/5/7 Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com Dear Bruno, As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in agreement with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate better with you. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon between Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as Neoplatonism announces a coming back to Pythagorean ontology. One of the Enneads of Plotinus, On Numbers is a crazily deep analysis of the role of numbers in theology. This one? Marchal B., 2007, A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus' Theory of Matter Yes. Theology is just the science of everything, which by definition includes God and Santa Klaus. A statement saying that such or such God does not exist is a theological statement. It is just my agnosticism which make me use the term in the most general sense. Then, in the frame of this or that hypothesis, we can get such or such precisions. I like how you explain it. From a pure marketing standpoint, you might avoid a lot of unnecessary intellectual resistance by using a different term. On the other hand, some of your colourful personality would not come through, so who am I to say... Lol ... I can understand. But the resistance is both more superficial (and boring), but has some deep aspect, and using the word theology has helped me to make that clear. In fact I have been encouraged to use the word theology because it makes things clearer, and it was well seen in my university (based on free-exam). I got problem, unrelated to this, and I have been proposed to defend the work in France, and there, I have been asked to remove anything referring to theology. In particular I have used the term psychology in place of theology, but this has led to other confusion, and an even greater resistance, making me realize the existence of a fundamentalist atheism. The main advantage of using the term theology is to prevent the reductionist interpretation of mechanism, and it is a way to recall that science has not yet decide between Plato and Aristotle, which proposes deeply different view on everything, including the type of God rationally possible. Eventually it made me realize that atheism is really a slight variant of christianism, when you compare to Plato. Of course some atheists can be uneasy with this, but then it means that they are not aware of the mind-body problem. I thought, perhaps naively, that most scientist where aware that science was deeply agnostic, and that if we do research on the mind-body problem, such agnosticism was the key to make progress. Eventually I understood that the Platonist conception of reality is deeply hidden in our culture, and that atheists are much more opposed to it than most intellectual having has some confessional religious background (something which has astonished me, but confirmed everyday since). This made atheism *theologically* more flawed than christianism. Now, from a computer science view, theology is just what is true about machine. We know that this is bigger than what the machine can prove, and that is enough from a clear definition standpoint. The original term was biology, but this led to confusion too. Since a long time, I read hundred of theologians from different confession and religion, and well, it fits remarkably with the subject, and with what I am talking about. And it is quite interesting to compare machine's theology (and machine's science) with the different existing religions. I tend to believe that most non natural human suffering comes from that sad fact: the withdrawal of theology as a science, and its political institutionalization. Many fundamentalism would not exist, especially the atheist one, with which I have been confronted even without knowing that. Of course this doe not concern the agnostic atheism as the word can sometimes have a larger (but confusing) meaning. In fact I call that theology, because it *is* theology. It concerns afterlife, the soul, the origin of realities, the existence of divine (non Turing emulable) entities, gods and goddesses, etc... and I am all against introducing new words when older words already exist, because that create big and unnecessary confusions. It helps also to refer to the theology of the Platonists and Neoplatonists. I read quite remarkable book on that subject. I am aware some resistance can come from the use of that word, but it seems to me the advantages, notably clarity, are more numerous than the disandvantages. I might be wrong, but I am not yet convinced. Bruno: You mention a metaproblem without formulating it inside the your theology,
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
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 mailto: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. 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. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem on purpose. Evidence is always relative to some theory. Brent -- 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Tue, May 7, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale Craig Weinberg and perhaps others on this list think so too, are you also a fan of astrology and numerology as he is? I'd really like to know so I could best allocate my time. 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 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Wed, May 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion. Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion, but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion, so please explain to me exactly why a event without a cause is illogical. What law of logic does it violate? 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 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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. Hi Bruno, You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences against it, Could you elaborate? I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave collapse, by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense. Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative physical reality of the superposition states. The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying 'don't listen to the theory when she talk about you or your body. She get absolutelly crazy, like if we could be ourself in superposiion states Ha ha ha!. 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. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem on purpose. This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least some form of many-worlds. True randomness strikes me as an euphemism for magic. I suspect you mean true physical randomness, or a 3p randomness, but this still exist mathematically, and experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are observed, of course it is only first person indeterminacy on the wave. Betting on true randomness for an observed reality is like asserting don't ask for more explanation. But from inside we might be confronted with some true randomness, like with the quantum beams. Bruno Telmo. Bruno 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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. 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- l...@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. 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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. Hi Bruno, You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences against it, Could you elaborate? I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave collapse, by some measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing the memory of the experience/the result of the experiment. If observation did collapse or select irreversibly, that could not make sense. But it isn't a measurement if you can make it cohere again. A measurement is irreversbile, erasing means reversing the process that, if it were not erased could have become a measurement. Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative physical reality of the superposition states. The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying 'don't listen to the theory when she talk about you or your body. She get absolutelly crazy, like if we could be ourself in superposiion states Ha ha ha!. Without the Born axiom there'd be no way to related QM to actual observations. According to the Schrodinger equation nothing every really happens. Brent 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. It is a belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem on purpose. This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least some form of many-worlds. True randomness strikes me as an euphemism for magic. I suspect you mean true physical randomness, or a 3p randomness, but this still exist mathematically, and experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are observed, of course it is only first person indeterminacy on the wave. Betting on true randomness for an observed reality is like asserting don't ask for more explanation. But from inside we might be confronted with some true randomness, like with the quantum beams. Bruno Telmo. Bruno 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 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. 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal' randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such. Even thinking in proper(?) conventional science terms: RANDOM occurrences would eliminate the possibility of sci. prediction and proper conclusions. Agnostic, or not. To John (Clark)'s PRIVATE(?) question: I stuck my nose into astrology 60+ years ago, for a short while. Numerology was always one of my favorite sources of laughter. My agnosticism is leaning on my successful 38 patents in conventional polymer technology. I developed questions. I did not inform you about these facts to trigger more of your time for my thoughts. John Mikes On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: John Clark: the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative you submit. Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon presumptions believed to be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in conventional science. I would love to learn from you (and others) if your post is reasonable and meaningful. No 'feelings', please. Bell's inequality is within the EPR assumption (pardon me: thought experiment). The consequences are well thought of. Math-phys predictions and conclusions ditto. Conventional science is a useful practicality (almost true, that almost works well with some mishaps and some later corrections). After 1/2 century successfully working within it I arrived at my agnostic stance. Believe it, or not, we still hve novelties to get by and they may change our as-(pre-)sumptions. John Mikes On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 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. 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 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.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:43:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Tue, May 7, 2013 John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale Craig Weinberg and perhaps others on this list think so too, are you also a fan of astrology and numerology as he is? I'd really like to know so I could best allocate my time. If you don't look at the evidence, then you won't know one way or the other. You would rather believe that phenomena such as human character and personality can only be a random consequence of unrelated mechanisms. Real astrology and numerology studies patterns derived from names and numbers and claims that there is some very specific and understandable coherence there. I tend to agree, though not in a causal way. You violently disagree, yet without any understanding of what you are disagreeing with, except for a caricature of astrology as fortune telling in idiotic magazines and newspaper columns. You think that you are a champion for science and reason, but actually you give them a bad name, polluting them beyond recognition with ignorance and intolerance. Your attitude is the same attitude of fundamentalism and the attitude which causes people to reject science and turn to fundamentalism. Craig 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 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.
