> The technical term for that is a 'hidden variable theory'; the variable
> has a value except we don't know it. Bell has shown that if the universe
> can be described by a hidden variable theory some measurable quantities
> have different values than if the variable has no value until measured.
> Alain Aspect has shown that nature is incompatible with a hidden
> variable theory. So Darren is right, and you, Einstein, Podolsky, and
> Rosen are proven wrong. Nothing to be ashamed of, I'd say.

Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's 
not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.

> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a 
> bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations 
> of fruit flies are the same species.  What exactly has to be in the genetics?

  I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
incompatible) is an incorrect definition.

  You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend anything.
"Two groups of animals are of different species if they have a different
fur coloring."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> OK, but that was my point, it could be controlled by something 
> *impossible* for us to find out. 

If the result is determined by something that exists before you measure it, 
you won't get the results we get. The whole point of the experiment is to 
figure out if there's something unmeasurable that is controlling the 
results. The answer is "no".

 > The same way as an artificial brain
> simulation running on one of our computers would find it impossible to 
> find out about our universe.

Except the brain would get different results for the Bell Inequality tests 
than we do. Because there would be hidden variables making the determination 
of what result to produce.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Does that prove that there is nothing "running" our universe - ie it's 
> not some computer simulation inside another far more complex universe?

It means that there isn't some "value" that exists before we measure it. 
It's possible that the super-universe is simulating ours, but if so, that 
super-universe also has purely random interactions in it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   It's just that defining "species" in terms of behavior is ludicrous.
> 
>> Well, give a definition that shows two men are the same species, that a 
>> bacteria's descendants are the same species, and that these two populations 
>> of fruit flies are the same species.  What exactly has to be in the genetics?
> 
>   I don't think you get it. What I said is that the claim "two groups of
> animals have been speciated away from each other if they won't interbreed
> because of instinctual preference" (rather than their genes being
> incompatible) is an incorrect definition.
> 
>   You can't argue pro that definition with the argument "well, you can't
> give a better definition". That argument coulud be used to defend anything.

I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking you what your definition is. You say 
"it's genetics", but that isn't enough. You're treating my question as if 
I'm saying "you're wrong."  I'm happy to be shown you're right, but you 
haven't done that yet.

*You* are the one asserting it's genetics and can't be just behavior. *You* 
are saying *I* am wrong. But you're not supporting that. You're just saying 
it louder.

I'm happy to be shown wrong, but the way to show that isn't to say "you 
don't get it". The way to show me wrong is to provide a *better* definition 
than "these creatures would never have fertile offspring if humans hadn't 
invented artificial insemination."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 21:49:42 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Well, the reason both sides make the argument is that its correct. If
> you don't enforce absolute moral codes

The world is shades of grey, not just black and white.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:07:59 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/01/2011 11:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:52:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/01/2011 8:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote: ...
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Mornington Crescent! :-P
>>
>> It's about time! :-)
>>
>>
> How many words?

All of them, of course.

Listened to Episode 3 last night.  Was good to hear "One Song to the Tune 
of Another" - it's been too long. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 22:37:52 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Its this thinking, and the inadvertent support for it, which makes the
> national day of prayer a problem. For them, it *does* endorse it, and
> they quite clearly do not think that "endorsing" religion, even their
> own, is a problem, only denying others their own (save, again, for any
> conflicts in expression, in which case their own overrides the "wrong"
> one).

So if even one nutjob thinks that something the government does is an 
endorsement of religion, then it is?

I think I see why we have gridlock if we have to be careful of what any 
one of "x" million people in the US could possibly result in them 
thinking that the government endorses a particular religion.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2011 5:22 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Mornington Crescent!:-P
>>> >>
>>> >>  It's about time!:-)
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >  How many words?
> All of them, of course.
>

LOL

> Listened to Episode 3 last night.  Was good to hear "One Song to the Tune
> of Another" - it's been too long.:-)

Which one was that?
We might be out of step. :-(

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:42:45 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>> Listened to Episode 3 last night.  Was good to hear "One Song to the
>> Tune of Another" - it's been too long.:-)
> 
> Which one was that?
> We might be out of step. :-(

The one from last Monday.

I'd find it hard to believe you haven't been listening since they started 
up 3 weeks ago. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message