Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> My personal theory is that it *isn't* random - we just can't see it well 
> enough to find a pattern. (As in, it's not possible to make the actual 
> measurements that would reveal a pattern.) But hey, what do I know?

No, you can actually measure that isn't the case. Look up "Bell's 
Inequality."

Basically, if you measure A, you get W or X. If you measure B, you get Y 
or Z. If there was some variable C that told you which you got, you'd 
get a distribution of W,X,Y,Z when you measured some As and some Bs 
that's different from what you really get. Hence, there's no actual 
"hidden variable", not even one that you theoretically can't measure.

It's complex and ugly, but if you actually find a decent tutorial, it 
makes sense.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message