[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

John K Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Wed Jul 16 17:36:00 UTC 2008


"Lee Corbin" <lcorbin at rawbw.com>

> How do you know that it's you moving and not the
> Milky Way and the Virgo Cluster that're moving?

I don't know if I'm moving or you are, and I don't
know if you're wearing white socks or green socks.
But I do know one thing, I don't care.

> You and your friend ten million light years apart
> synchronize your clocks via light signals. [blah blah]

Lee I've know that "a simultaneous event" is not a 
unique concept and depends entirely on the frame of 
reference since my first year of high school, before 
that probably. At the end of the thought experiment 
we are both in the same frame of reference; we must
be because we can shake hands. We BOTH agree that
at the start we were VERY far apart and we BOTH 
remember what our particles were doing back then,
and we BOTH agree how far apart those events were in
space-time, and we BOTH agree that by using common
sense reasoning two particles at that huge distance in 
space-time should have no causal relationship with
each other.

And yet when we compare records we find that our 
particles were doing the exact same thing when they 
had no business doing so. Bohr found that to be weird,
so did Feynman, so do I. You say you have such a 
deep understanding of this subject that it all fits
together in your mind, if true then you Sir are extraordinary.

> Hah. So you too never really understood SR.

Apparently Einstein didn't understand Special Relativity 
either because it's his thought experiment not mine; 
I just added a few baubles like space ships and the Virgo 
cluster. He thought the conclusion of his thought experiment
was more than just weird, he thought it was absurd, 
so absurd he thought it proved Quantum Mechanics must 
have a flaw. But 40 years later his thought experiment was
actually performed in the lab and we now know the world
really is that absurd. It turns out that being absurd is not
good enough for a reducto ad absurdum proof, 
it's got to be imposable.

You understand all this, Einstein didn't, and neither do I.

  John K Clark








More information about the extropy-chat mailing list