Itoero

I just don't use 'local' when it's not necessary. Also, non local variables are not disproven but they aren't proven either.. The word 'pseudo' explains it. True randomness does not exist. Every action is a reaction with a causal relation. You can always predict the outcome of something if you have sufficient knowledge and technology. I do understand it. Why do you think the probabilistic behavior is a real property of particles and not a property caused by our science/technology? Something swansont said explains it: "Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not there's no way to test it." That's a nice picture! I like photons. He said something like this: "Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with Newtonian dynamics...we have a Newtonian brain if you will." =>That's what I said but in different words. I said we have the wrong logic to explain the cause for quantum effects. He also said "we need to find a link between the probabilistic math and definite reality." =>He makes a distinction between the math and reality. The math does not explain reality. 28:00->32:15

huh? Are you kidding me? It's been said many times that there are no local hidden variables. I said several times that hidden variables are not defined and you can't disprove a hidden reality which you did not agree with. And now you make the nonsensical comment that science does not considers definite reality? Science tries to explain definite reality. If a process is deterministic then that does not mean you can show that in experiments.

Wikipedia has a pretty big list of transitional fossils.(with explanations/pictures) On the right on this page you find many links to Wikipedia pages concerning subjects related to evolution. This might very helpful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

It's a bit late now, but I would ask for someone's dog. A dog breaks the eggs and eats the inside.

You did not say radioactivity is indeterministic. I took radioactivity as example that non deterministic processes are not subjeect to the rules of its reality. -The moment a particle starts to decay seems random yet the half life proves its not random. -You can't predict if a photon is reflected or not(when shot through a polarising filter), but you can predict it will be 50/50. If its random then then it can't be 50/50 every time. -If there are no hidden variable between entangled particles then those are separate particles. Correlation can't exist without hidden variables. -You can't predict the exact place of a photon but you can predict the wave behavior. If photons drop random then they should not show wave behavior on the screen. (in double slit) =>The presence of a hidden reality is all over QM. A half-life usually describes the decay of discrete entities, such as radioactive atoms. In that case, it does not work to use the definition that states "half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay". For example, if there are 3 radioactive atoms with a half-life of one second, there will not be "1.5 atoms" left after one second. Instead, the half-life is defined in terms of probability: "Half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay on average". In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%. Isn't binary logic the reason why many people believe in the complete absence of local hidden variables? Why do you think those measurement outcomes show definite reality and are not just something that arises when our knowledge (technology/science) shoots short? I'm not the only one that thinks the probabilistic math does not explain definite reality. We need to find a link between the two.

It depends what you consider proof. I take radioactivity as example. We created the rule that +/- 50% carbon-14 decays within 5,730 years. If this process is indeterministic and nothing defines the moment it starts to decay then the process is not subject to the rules(half-life) we set up.

The form of a heart is based on the buttocks of a female bending over

Can you plz answer the following? "we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random or indeterministic. If the moment is random then the decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years..." -Determinism being mathematically untenable does not prove anything. Why do you think the probabilistic math explains definite reality? Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with a Newtonian world...we have a Newtonian brain if you will. We have simply the wrong tools (atm)to make valid assumptions concerning the cause of quantum effects.

I drag in Bell again because you made the statement that you only need one single non deterministic subject or event to disprove determinism. You can never proof an event to be indeterministic. You can only prove or disprove deterministic theories. That's what bell's theorem shows, it disproves theories concerning hidden variables it does not prove the complete absence of hidden variables. -Determinism being mathematically untenable does no prove anything. Why do you think the probabilistic math explains definite reality? Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with a Newtonian world...we have a Newtonian brain if you will. We have simply the wrong tools (atm)to make valid assumptions concerning the cause of quantum effects. -A process being deterministic does not mean you can determine the outcome. It enables you to determine the outcome when you have sufficient knowledge concerning the process. -Can you plz answer the following? "we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random or indeterministic. If the moment is random then the decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years..." -That shows that math has limits. It's how we observe/interpret/understand things, but it has no influence on physical reality. All processes are deterministic. Something non deterministic is not subject to the rules of its reality.

That's true but you can never proof the absence of something unknown. You can't scientifically proof indeterminism. That's why the inequalities disprove only our theories about local hidden variables. Those theories are a product of our knowledge of physics. The theorem basically states that our knowledge about physics can't explain the cause for quantum effects. If the moment an atom like carbon-14 decays is completely random, then there is no reason an atom decays in a time frame that's observable for us. The decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years... we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random. If you have 1000000 carbon-14 atoms then it's extremely unlikely that even a single atom decays within 5,730 years if nothing causes the decay. I don't understand the question:) Can you give a link to such an experiment?

On a science forum it's important that people know the difference. This is the Philosophy sub forum...ever heard of a philosophical theory? If you had any understanding you would not ask for the names of the local hidden variable theories. No. The theorem shows that there are no properties that we know of that will determine the value. You can't disprove a hidden reality. I don't understand why you can't understand this. Again...There can be indeterminism (like the behavior of fundamental particles) but only when it's controlled. If it's not controlled then there wouldn't be any order. We have zero knowledge concerning the cause for the forming of fundamental particles. If something seems to happen random based on experiments then that just means it seems random in those experiments... Photons hitting polarization filter are reflected, or passing through. 50% from billions of photons per second is passing through, 50% from billions of photons per second is reflected. If you shoot one photon, you can't predict if it's going to be reflected or not but the 50% is determined. This is imo only possible if a hidden reality controlls seemingly random properties.

Ok, but how can we know we're dealing with real science? You have to believe in the validity of experiments. (like the bell test exp)

Why do you think your God wants that?

It is wrong to think that the task of science is to find out how Nature is. Science concerns what we say about Nature.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg is just an unborn chicken (same dna), it's like asking "Which came first, the embryo or the fully grown human?" The chicken egg of course came first. I don't understand why this is considered a causality dilemma.

I thought the idea inhere was that a theory needs to be scientific? Indeterminism can be controlled in a deterministic system but not by a person.

OK but the body of knowledge is not necessary scientifically proven. Because no-one knows whether the indeterminism is reality or just a property that arises when our logic and science shoots short. There can be indeterminism in a deterministic system but only if the indeterminism is controlled, which imo makes it not real indeterminism.

Not all theories are scientific. You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory That's not just my viewpoint. A theory is not necessary scientific, that's just one kind of theory. -You can define fundamental particles based on their spin. If their spin is not caused by a hidden reality then the spin is not adjusted to the properties of a specific fundamental particle. If the 1/2 spin of a neutrino is not caused by any property of the neutrino then the spin s completely random and we should not be able to define particles, based on their spin. The fact that there is order in the universe, points to a hidden reality. -The reason for there not to be local hidden variables is because it seems impossible, based on the experiments/inequalities. Why do you think our logic can explain a world we have zero knowledge from?

The primordial soup theory of Oparin-Haldane. It's a description of an event that probably happened. It does not have predictions...I think.

That was not what I meant. A 'theory' is a word that can be used to describe many things. A scientific theory is just one kind of theory. The theories concerning local hidden variables were disproven, not the hidden variables. I agree with Bell's theorem but I don't agree with the absence of local hidden variables. I have many reasons. It's not just because indeterminism is hard to imagine.

That's true, Evolution theory was a bad example. I mean that a theory can be a description of an event that happened in the past.

There is no evidence but there is a lot that points to the absence of God or gods. There is no evidence but there is a lot that points to a hidden reality.