[ExI] R: Re: R: Re: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Cramer on impossibility of FTL communication

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sep 4, 2015 9:29 AM, "scerir at alice.it" <scerir at alice.it> wrote:
>> In general you seem to be postulating, "If we are uncertain about which
of two things did something or is something, then they must be interacting
with each other at any future point where some external observer finally
clears up that uncertainty."  That conclusion does not follow from that
premise.
>
> That is why QM is weird.

Postulating something that is logically invalid, when there is an alternate
explanation that satisfies the experimental data and is not logically
invalid, does not make that first, invalid postulate "weird".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150904/3a912a15/attachment.html>