Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 01:56 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 01:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right. Which is why the doubters, the cranks, are getting their papers published in Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.

Does Nature publish pro flat-earth articles? By your reasoning, clearly they should. Facepalm

Where in the article does the author of it dispute Bell's theorem? Quote and paste it for us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 01:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right. Which is why the doubters, the cranks, are getting their papers published in Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.

Does Nature publish pro flat-earth articles? By your reasoning, clearly they should. Facepalm

Where in the article does the author of it dispute Bell's theorem? Quote and paste it for us.

"Most physicists are localists: they recognize the two options but choose the first, because hidden variables are, by definition, empirically inaccessible. Quantum information scientists embrace irreducible randomness as a resource for secure cryptography. Other physicists and philosophers (the ‘non-localist camp’) dispute that there are two options, and insist that Bell’s theorem mandates non-locality."

The dispute is over the interpretation of Bell's Theorem, and that is what I said in my post.

(25-08-2015 05:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nothing excepts observations you would expect to see if God exists and maintains this world.

The only reason you would accept the miraculous healing of an amputee as evidence of God's existence is because it would be an effect without a local cause. The quantum world is full of effects without local causes. So why shouldn't that be considered evidence for God's existence?

I suppose you are basing that on your faith in Bell's Theorem?

Bell's Theorem might be proof if and only if your interpretation (reality is non-local) is true.
That is heavily disputed, so your contention is not proof.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2015, 11:46 PM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Where in the article does the author of it dispute Bell's theorem? Quote and paste it for us.

"Most physicists are localists: they recognize the two options but choose the first, because hidden variables are, by definition, empirically inaccessible. Quantum information scientists embrace irreducible randomness as a resource for secure cryptography. Other physicists and philosophers (the ‘non-localist camp’) dispute that there are two options, and insist that Bell’s theorem mandates non-locality."

The dispute is over the interpretation of Bell's Theorem, and that is what I said in my post.

(25-08-2015 05:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  I suppose you are basing that on your faith in Bell's Theorem?

Bell's Theorem might be proof if and only if your interpretation (reality is non-local) is true.
That is heavily disputed, so your contention is not proof.

The article you linked only supports my position. Reality is either irreducibly random(I used intrinsic random) or it is non local.

I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 11:56 PM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 11:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.

Ah yes, the good old "I think it's nonsensical and therefore it is because I am an expert physicist" line. I guess that settles it Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-08-2015, 12:21 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 11:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.

Ah yes, the good old "I think it's nonsensical and therefore it is because I am an expert physicist" line. I guess that settles it Smile

What reason is there to believe this new concept of randomness other than to persist in the error that what you see is all there is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 12:43 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(28-08-2015 12:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 11:56 PM)morondog Wrote:  Ah yes, the good old "I think it's nonsensical and therefore it is because I am an expert physicist" line. I guess that settles it Smile

What reason is there to believe this new concept of randomness other than to persist in the error that what you see is all there is?

Don't be fucking ridiculous. Since when does physics only concern what can be seen? If you're alleging the existence of stuff outside of detectability, I would *assume* that out of the two of us, you are the loony one, but *I don't claim that I'm an expert physicist*, so they may have their reasons. You apparently know better than the experts in the field which is the the correct explanation, as you do for medical science as well. One wonders what the world would do if you kept your genius hidden.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-08-2015, 01:26 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 11:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The article you linked only supports my position. Reality is either irreducibly random(I used intrinsic random) or it is non local.

I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.


Since when did reality give a flying fuck whether or not any human thought it was nonsensical or otherwise?


Exhibit A: The Double Slit Experiment

[Image: 2000px-Ebohr1_IP.svg.png]

Reality cordially invites you and your incredulity to go fuck yourself, with a cactus.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
28-08-2015, 01:51 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(28-08-2015 01:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 11:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The article you linked only supports my position. Reality is either irreducibly random(I used intrinsic random) or it is non local.

I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.


Since when did reality give a flying fuck whether or not any human thought it was nonsensical or otherwise?


Exhibit A: The Double Slit Experiment

[Image: 2000px-Ebohr1_IP.svg.png]

Reality cordially invites you and your incredulity to go fuck yourself, with a cactus.

I'll respond to this one when you either admit the article does not dispute Bell's theorem or copy and paste a quote showing that it does.

Your silence on this matter is damming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 02:17 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2015 02:21 AM by Chas.)
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(27-08-2015 11:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 08:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Most physicists are localists: they recognize the two options but choose the first, because hidden variables are, by definition, empirically inaccessible. Quantum information scientists embrace irreducible randomness as a resource for secure cryptography. Other physicists and philosophers (the ‘non-localist camp’) dispute that there are two options, and insist that Bell’s theorem mandates non-locality."

The dispute is over the interpretation of Bell's Theorem, and that is what I said in my post.

The article you linked only supports my position. Reality is either irreducibly random(I used intrinsic random) or it is non local.

Your position is that you reject one interpretation due to personal incredulity.

The article shows that the physics community is split on the meaning of Bell's Theorem which is what I said.

Nice try at trying to redefine the argument.

Quote:I reject intrinsic randomness because it is nonsensical.

I reject your opinion because you are nonsensical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
28-08-2015, 02:22 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
Wait. .... are we all rejecting each others reality and subdtituting our own?

Because I'm pretty sure Adam Savage already has that under copyright. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: