Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS

On Mar 11, 1:19 pm, billg...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
In article <ueEuesurz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob Koehler) writes:

In article <960d254f-6ae7-4334-ab8e-e58e2b1ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Doug Phillips <dphil...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

You are confusing quantum mechanics math with reality. If you mean
that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is not concerned with
resolving apparent randomness, then you are correct. You might want to
look into the de Broglie-Bohm theory, more recently called Bohmian
Mechanics.

Quantum mechanics math vs. reality? You think reality differs?

I'll bet a lot of people do. When science requires faith than religion
in order to accept that which can neither be observed nor satisfactorily
proven I think more and more people will see the difference.

I assume you meant "When science requires *more* faith..."

Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires
evidence. Religious people have what James Randi calls "blind
faith"[1]. That makes all the difference in the world.

[1] See http://www.randi.org/jr/072503.html (Mostly a good article,
but I disagree with his opinion of the Wizard of Oz.)

As far as using local hidden variables to restore determinism that
only "appears" probabilistic, the experimental evidence ruling these
out is more compelling than ever. Many, many experiments have been
done and QM always, always wins. We're not talking about the
possibility of experimental error clouding the results. The skeptics
who complained that the early experiments could still allow local
hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said
detectors were not 100% efficient. OK. But the efficiencies have been
greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped
out. Then there is the GHZ paradox which largely sidesteps the issue.
There is simply no way to explain the results of GHZ experiments using
local hidden variables.

If you would learn about this, you would probably slowly begin to
realize that there is no way out. It is getting to the point where
insisting there must be determinism somehow being hidden behind the
veil of probability is akin to denying the existence of atoms. Do you
deny the existence of atoms? If so, why; and if not, why not?

I used to be on the deterministic side. I even tried to concoct an
explanation for polarization experiments to show how determinism could
still prevail, but I quickly found my analysis to be flawed.

The only faith science requires is faith in evidence, which is exactly
the opposite of religious faith, which is faith that some people
hundreds and/or thousands of years ago interacted with some god and
wrote about it. That's hardly the same.

AEF


bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof that macintosh is better than VMS
    ... Scientists have faith in the scientific method which requires ... hidden variables because of events missed by detectors because said ... greatly improved and the room for determinism has been all but wiped ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: On Being a Lutheran
    ... >> Who's seeking out quantum mechanics in the bible besides you? ... >> claims that Jesus performed miracles. ... Which isn't the time of Jesus - which really makes the whole thing even more ... But that is what faith is about. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)