Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:03:52 05/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2001 at 03:58:16, Ratko V Tomic wrote:
>> Actually, everything is a coin toss {probability function},
>> including such mudane things as:
>> "Will I hit the 'post' button?"
>
>While it is true that there is some non-zero uncertainty in
>most things (but not all, e.g. what is 2+2), the information
>you gain about the coin or dice bias from the outcome of single
>toss is much smaller than what you gain from a single game.
>
>That is, even if one accepts that there is uncertianty in the
>chess move selection, one can extract great number of tosses
>out of a single game, not just a single toss (as when
>picking the final result, and ignoring everything else).
>
>As Uri mentioned, by looking the program's analysis during the
>game, you can find out and often eliminate superficial effects
>on the outcome of a single/few games an opening trap/bad opening,
>you can see how far they look ahead etc.
>
>
>>In fact, we often have an interesting mix of outcomes:
>>http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/dissipative/Schrcat.html
>>until the measurement occurs.
>>
>>Albert Einstein was almost always right. But he was wrong about this:
>>"God does not throw dice."
>>
>
>Einstein was right here, too, at least as far as noticing the
>absurdity of the Orthodox QM Measurement Theory. The QM MT
>in the form taught nowdays started as a strange marriage between
>the absurd and the incoherent, i.e. the von Neumann's theory
>(who was a good mathematician, but not much of a physicist)
>that mind collapses wave function with Boh'r pre-quantum
>theory pseudo-philosophy.
>
>At present that whole field (QM Measurement Theory) is at its
>core a fraud. The great _actual_ successes of quantum theory
>(QED especially) have nothing to do with the gratuitous add-ons,
>such as collapse postulate (on which QM MT is based on).
>
>I have spent copuple years as a physics graduate student studying
>the field, and have read just about everything written in
>physics journals and textbooks on the theme. I had advisor who was
>a believer in the QM MT (he was mostly a mathematician), Bell's
>non-locality,... etc, and still I came out with much worse opinion
>on the legitimacy of the subject than what I came in with.
>
>There is no any empirical evidence or empirical consequences
>of the von Nemann's style non-local collapse/projection postulate,
>(especially in the form used in Bell's inequalities, despite
>various claims by experimenters of confirming it). The QM
>"measurement theory" and Bell inequalities "theory" has evolved
>to the point of being deified as unfalsifiable religious dogma, i.e.
>when critics point out that a particular experiment didn't
>actually confirm it (i.e. eliminate local hiden variables), the
>priesthood of this dogma wave their hands and claim that it was
>actually confirmed, except for some "unimportant" (in their
>judgment) loopholes. The whole game in this racket has become a
>competition who will come up with most derrogatory euphemisms
>for these "loopholes" (a term derrogatory by itself), so they
>can better dismiss the critics and cut them out from publishing
>the opposing arguments. Some day this whole unfortunate dead end
>(a parasitic offshoot of quantum theory) will be seen the way we
>look today at dark ages. For some intro into the professional and
>perfectly competent dissident argument check the Trevor Marshall's
>site (he was a university professor, but had to retire early,
>once he published several papers pointing out the problems with
>the claims around the Apsect's Bell inequality tests):
>
> http://www.keyinnov.demon.co.uk/antiqm.htm
I know this is quite off topic, but I want to add here that I've read quite a
bit on QM too, and I find it a usefull math tool, but nothing else. Uncertainity
is only apparent. "Nothing _can be measured_ with higher precision than..." is
very different from "nothing _is defined_ with higher precision than...".
Cause-effect principle is violated by uncertainity. If cause-effect principle
is not valid... well, why should I explain the effect caused by that, if it
doesn't exist? :)
José C.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.