Re: Surviving Einstein.
From: AE (nospam_at_hidden.com)
Date: 06/30/03
- Next message: Paul Schlyter: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Scott Fluhrer: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Maybe in reply to: Fab: "Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Martin Green: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 08:32:01 +0200
John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "AE" <hidden@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:3EFDCCA9.5020609@nospam.com...
> ...
>>
>>The point is that this is exactly where Einstein went wrong and where
>>you are going wrong as well: There is no reason to believe universe
>>would be strictly deterministic.
>
> Perhaps you have no reason to believe that, but that is your privilege.
> Believe what you like.
True - one can believe without reason - that's what religion is based on.
> ...
>>To say there would be a hidden variable that just cannot be measured is
>>not any better than to call it a random event nor is this a more logic
>>claim.
>
> Well, that is certainly your opinion, and you are as entitled to hold that
> opinion as you are entitled to hold any other religious views. I am
> entitled to disagree with your religion. I think I'm right.
That's exactly the point: Talking about some hidden mechanism that
cannot be analyzed with any experiments is as much as talking about
religion.
I won't try to keep you from following your "Universe is deterministic"
religion, but I'll strongly disagree in case you would say this believe
would be based on science.
AE
- Next message: Paul Schlyter: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Previous message: Scott Fluhrer: "Re: Maybe we only need PCBC..."
- Maybe in reply to: Fab: "Surviving Einstein."
- Next in thread: Martin Green: "Re: Surviving Einstein."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
