[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

John K Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Tue Jul 15 16:42:48 UTC 2008


"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> He's [Feynman] holding up too highly some weird notion of
>"understands".  There are plenty of people who've been
> doing QM calculations all their lives and understand what
> they're doing.

Feynman was not alone, Niels Bohr wasn't exactly a lightweight and he said:

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."

He also said:

"Some subjects are so serious that one can only joke about them."

> Was ist das "instantaneously"?

It means that I got into my spaceship and traveled at 99% the
speed of light to visit my friend in the Virgo Cluster a billion light
years away. After a billion years I got there and find that a billion
years ago what I was doing to my particle was changing what
was happening to his particle a billion light years away a 
billion years ago.

I can accept that the above must be true because I can get numbers
out of the concept and test it, but I still find it weird. I make no claim
to understand how the world could possibly be that bizarre, I know it
is but I have no mental picture, I just crank the numbers. If you do
understand it you have my (skeptical) admiration.

> That kind of idea is reference-frame dependent.

Yes, the concept of "Instantaneously" is reference-frame
dependent, but the distance between 2 events in space-time is not,
it's always the same, and in my example that distance is very large
indeed, far too large for even light to cause an effect. And yet something 
did.

> All that's happening is that the outcome of a measurement *here*
> is correlated with the outcome of a measurement *there*.

All? ALL! Here is a billion light years from there!

 John K Clark







More information about the extropy-chat mailing list