Proof of the astronomical probability that You do not exist !
-
Well, I`'m non the wiser: Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables). Sounds to me like they can't really show cause and effect of anything with absolute certainty?
-
Bell's theorem says that if there are hidden variables, they must be non-local. But non-local hidden variables communicate faster than the speed of light, which is bad.
I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of the words are, as per usual in these theorems. But it was said of QM that if you hit a tennis ball and infinite number of times on a wall it will at one point just pass through the wall. The theorem seem to say that QM can influence the result in any way? :doh:
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
When they also ban politicians, accountants, insurance companies, lawyers, marketing morons, salesmen, and [anything]-evangelists, you can expect a call from me, to hit you up for temporary accommodation while I look for a house!
:laugh:
You're right. Elegance is simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You're right. Elegance is simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Love and hate are simple feelings, however the results are sadly often not elegant ;)
-
Bell's theorem says that if there are hidden variables, they must be non-local. But non-local hidden variables communicate faster than the speed of light, which is bad.
harold aptroot wrote:
communicate faster than the speed of light,
Hey... like my GF ;P
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
And for some reason people will always have hard time accepting this.
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
My interpretation of the "reverse statistics" is not that they contradict any proof we do exist; rather that they contrarily confirm the 100% probability we do not exist is as improbable as the belief/experience/assertion that we do exist, and that what we do experience as our "existence" in what we belive is a one-way arrow of time is, in fact, a fiction of an astoundingly improbable miracle, as much an artifact of our symbiosis with the virus of language as anything else. Any pseudo-factoid that assists one to walk the razor's edge that never shaved Occam is, ergo, an entheogenic homeopathic remedy. To awake to that is to know Chuang Tzu's inner state at the moment he was not sure he was a butterfly dreaming he was a man, or a man dreaming he was a butterfly; it is to know what Dorothy speaks of when she said: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." In that moment the experience of both "butterfly-ness" and "human-ness" is never more crystal-clear, not to mention Kansas, red-slippers, etc. Which way is Capistrano ? I think I need to roost.
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
Cool. later.
-
The guy obviously hasn't figured out why statistical calculations are never done going backward: You always end up at the same starting point, which is zero. Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero, which is fair enough. But, since then, a lot of things have happened (I think it must be more than eleven), each one of which has increased the probability of everything being exactly as it is now. Ask the Bueller kid: If you prop your dad's sports car up on axle props and run it in reverse, the wheels may go backward, but the milometer remains exactly as it is. i.e. the probability of your father having met your mother remains at 100%; the probability of your grandparents having met remains at 100%, etc. Gawd! that's more than plenty serious discussion, for today. From the rest of the day, the probability of my postings being idiotic is at 120% (and rising!).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero,
I feel less alone knowing we share such humble beginnings. thanks, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
The guy obviously hasn't figured out why statistical calculations are never done going backward: You always end up at the same starting point, which is zero. Before the beginning of the universe, the probability of anything at all being as it is today was zero, which is fair enough. But, since then, a lot of things have happened (I think it must be more than eleven), each one of which has increased the probability of everything being exactly as it is now. Ask the Bueller kid: If you prop your dad's sports car up on axle props and run it in reverse, the wheels may go backward, but the milometer remains exactly as it is. i.e. the probability of your father having met your mother remains at 100%; the probability of your grandparents having met remains at 100%, etc. Gawd! that's more than plenty serious discussion, for today. From the rest of the day, the probability of my postings being idiotic is at 120% (and rising!).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
Before the beginning of the universe,
But there was no before ...
PooperPig - Coming Soon
Sure there was. We totally unimportant creatures on a totally unimportant world in a totally unimportant solar system in a totally unimportant arm of a totally unimportant galaxy in a totally unimportant tiny region of the universe don't know what it was like, but the universe doesn't care about our opinion, because it's totally unimportant.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Sure there was. We totally unimportant creatures on a totally unimportant world in a totally unimportant solar system in a totally unimportant arm of a totally unimportant galaxy in a totally unimportant tiny region of the universe don't know what it was like, but the universe doesn't care about our opinion, because it's totally unimportant.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
totally unimportant creatures
Speak for yourself ;) Depends if the single-big-bang theory is true, really. If Time started with the big bang, then the very concept of 'before' cannot exist.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
Time became what it is with the big bang; that's subtly different from starting. Still, why waste energy thinking about it? Sooner or later, someone (possibly on a different but equally totally unimportant planet) will make a time machine, and there'll be another big bang, so every totally unimportant thing we ever do will be gone.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Time became what it is with the big bang; that's subtly different from starting. Still, why waste energy thinking about it? Sooner or later, someone (possibly on a different but equally totally unimportant planet) will make a time machine, and there'll be another big bang, so every totally unimportant thing we ever do will be gone.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Ah, the way statistics can manipulate reality. On the other hand, the probably that any human exists is 100% -- after all, humans exist. It's irrelevant to ask the probably that I exist because all those humans that exist are "I's" and the ones that don't are obviously "not I." In other words, you cannot have a human exist that is not an "I" (meaning, a unique individual to which we can say "you" to.) Silly statistics. :) Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
Marc Clifton wrote:
Silly statistics
Three statisticians go hunting together. They see a deer, and the first statistician shoots, but his shot misses by a foot to the left. Then the second statistician shoots, but his shot misses by a foot to the right. The third statistician says "Okay, we got it!"Regards, Nish
Website: www.voidnish.com Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
You obviously go to different casinos than those I've visited.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I usually go to casinos to visit my money.
The difficult may take time, the impossible a little longer.
-
You're right. Elegance is simplicity.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
-
I'm not entirely sure what the meaning of the words are, as per usual in these theorems. But it was said of QM that if you hit a tennis ball and infinite number of times on a wall it will at one point just pass through the wall. The theorem seem to say that QM can influence the result in any way? :doh:
-
I've always had my doubts since I was wee tad and heard my parents talking, and my father saying: "but, where did he come from ?:" [^]
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
