Regarding Franko...

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

BillyJoe: Probability = Magic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: I prefer to say that randomness is magic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillyJoe: Is the outcome of a coin toss magic then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: Why do you say that?

The outcome of a coin toss is random.
You said: "randomness is magic"
Therefore, according to you, the outcome of a coin toss is magic?

BillyJoe: Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: Yeah

Are you just hoping or do you have evidence?

BillyJoe: ...are you saying that, when we watch "The Terminator" a second time and it is the same as when we watched it the first time, that is evidence against quantum probability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: I wouldnt use the video as such as "evidence." Different situation. What if I taped the ball going through the wall?
You end up arguing what was actually taped rather than QM.

Okay, I am definitely giving up on the "replay" scenario.

BillyJoe

 

[whitefork]

If you claim that folks are made of atoms, and you are not using the atoms described by QM and modern physics, then I conclude that your atoms are something else.

You'll have to tell us what they are.

If you use the terminology of physics, you have to accept the mode that gives that terminology meaning.

Otherwise, you are using the concepts to argue that those concepts are themselves invalid, and that you can't do.

(I was following on a hint dropped by Mordred a while back, but I had come to the same conclusion independently).

The difficulty of modern science is not an argument against it.

 

[Titanpoint]

Proof once again (if proof were actually required) that neither Franko nor wraith,. have any comprehension as to what "the laws of physics" really are.

Should I recommend some books?

TP

 

[Mordred]

Heh...just ran across a fairly relevant quote.

"Stop telling God what to do!" --Neils Bohr in response to Albert Einstein

 

[wraith]

wraith,

The outcome of a coin toss is random.
You said: "randomness is magic"
Therefore, according to you, the outcome of a coin toss is magic?

The whole event is governed by TLOP. I dont know the answer every time I flip a coin.

Are you just hoping or do you have evidence??

Following logic actually. How about you?

Okay, I am definitely giving up on the "replay" scenario.

If you want

 

[wraith]

If you claim that folks are made of atoms, and you are not using the atoms described by QM and modern physics, then I conclude that your atoms are something else.

What atoms are being "made up"?

 

[wraith]

Proof once again (if proof were actually required) that neither Franko nor wraith,. have any comprehension as to what "the laws of physics" really are.

haha
from any other person, that would have an insult

Should I recommend some books?

na, Trickster has already done that...
but thanks for the input anyway TeePee
haha

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe: The outcome of a coin toss is random.
You said: "randomness is magic"
Therefore, according to you, the outcome of a coin toss is magic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: The whole event is governed by TLOP. I dont know the answer every time I flip a coin.

So, is the coin toss random or is it magic? Or both?

BillyJoe: Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: Yeah
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillyJoe: Are you just hoping or do you have evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: Following logic actually. How about you?

In your opinion, wraith, what has the upper hand Logic or Empiricism?
If, time and again, quantum probability can be demonstrated empirically, do we still just toss it all out because it disagrees with Logic?
Is Logic your Goddess?

BillyJoe: Okay, I am definitely giving up on the "replay" scenario.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: If you want

Well, we can't seem to get to first base with it and really it's kind of irrelevant compared with the "Identical Universes" scenario.

BillyJoe.

 

[wraith]

So, is the coin toss random or is it magic? Or both?

It's neither. Sure, the outcome appears random. But If I had all the info, I could predict the outcome everytime with 100% certain. I cant control TLOP.

In your opinion, wraith, what has the upper hand Logic or Empiricism?
If, time and again, quantum probability can be demonstrated empirically, do we still just toss it all out because it disagrees with Logic?
Is Logic your Goddess?

If you want to believe in magic, then thats up to you

Well, we can't seem to get to first base with it and really it's kind of irrelevant compared with the "Identical Universes" scenario.

if you think so

 

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

You do not accept quantum probability because it is not logical.
Even though there is heaps of empirical support for it, it cannot be true because it is not logical.
You also don't think that you need to show that logic applies to the real world.

It sounds a bit like forcing reality to fit a theory rather than finding a theory to fit reality.

regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[wraith]

wraith,

You do not accept quantum probability because it is not logical.
Even though there is heaps of empirical support for it, it cannot be true because it is not logical.
You also don't think that you need to show that logic applies to the real world.

It sounds a bit like forcing reality to fit a theory rather than finding a theory to fit reality.

regards,
BillyJoe.

It appears that youre also saying the the replay has the potenitial to change?


Im not forcing anything

 

[BillyJoe]

It appears that youre also saying the the replay has the potenitial to change?

Information from the original event was stored on the tape and will only change according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Ever watched a really old movie?)

.....hey, forget the "Replay" scenario.

 

[wraith]

Information from the original event was stored on the tape and will only change according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Ever watched a really old movie?)

Why are you comparing it to a video?
Where is the past stored?
In magical matter?

hey, forget the "Replay" scenario.

ahhh.....no

 

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

The video was the "replay" scenario.
Even now after all this time we can't make contact on this scenario.
Really we should just drop it.....

Unless you can clearly and unambiguously state your interpretation.
Hint: It could take more than a compact three word sentence.
Of course it could be me too dumb to understand your eloquent postings

BillyJoe.

 

[wraith]

wraith,

The video was the "replay" scenario.
Even now after all this time we can't make contact on this scenario.
Really we should just drop it.....

If you have exact same conditions for something to happen and you have those exact same condiotions again and something else happens, (which youre claiming?) then it's magic....

unless you can explain otherwise

 

[The Fool]

If you have exact same conditions for something to happen and you have those exact same condiotions again and something else happens, (which youre claiming?) then it's magic....

unless you can explain otherwise

Frank.
Mordred and (I think) some others have REPEATEDLY explained Quantum Probability to you, you are not interested in discussing or even attempting to refute this explanation. You are simply going to use the "magic" mantra to stonewall further discussion. This is an advanced form of "Jedi Knight gravity syndrome".

Can you see the irony in labeling things that are a problem to you as "magic" then in the next breath conjuring a paranormal Goddess to explain that which you do not understand.

 

[BillyJoe]

If you have exact same conditions for something to happen and you have those exact same condiotions again and something else happens, (which youre claiming?) then it's magic....

unless you can explain otherwise

Try this.....

Set up X universes and run them for T seconds. Then.....
- count the number of different types of outcomes.
- count the number of each type of outcome.
- calculate the probabilities of each type of outcome P(P1, P2, P3 ......... ).

Using Schroedinger's equations.....
- calculate all possible types of outcomes.
- calculate the probabilities of each type of outcome p(p1, p2, p3 ......... ) .

Suppose that it turns out that P = p.

Would you still say that quantum probability is magic?

regards,
BillyJoe.

 

[wraith]

Frank.
Mordred and (I think) some others have REPEATEDLY explained Quantum Probability to you, you are not interested in discussing or even attempting to refute this explanation. You are simply going to use the "magic" mantra to stonewall further discussion. This is an advanced form of "Jedi Knight gravity syndrome".

Can you see the irony in labeling things that are a problem to you as "magic" then in the next breath conjuring a paranormal Goddess to explain that which you do not understand.

irony?
hahaha
no not really Fool, not really

just show me how the replay can produce different outcomes and Ill shut the hell up


that goes to you as well Billy

 

[wraith]

Would you still say that quantum probability is magic?

I never said probability was magic. Just the way that you asked me if I thought that flipping a coin was magic.

 

[Mordred]

I never said probability was magic. Just the way that you asked me if I thought that flipping a coin was magic.

So probability isn't magic...but an explanation of our observations based on a probabilistic model is? Exactly where does the magic come in then?

Also waiting for an explanation from Franko/wraith about a model to explain the interference pattern observed in the doulbe slit experiment. Also wouldn't mind seeing an actual opinion about how the universe must be described by simple math...and how the tensor calculus in general relativity is somehow simple, while the wave equations of quantum mechanics aren't.