https://twitter.com/RiskyLiberal/status/264250952201170944

Especially those of us who think of New Jersey as our homeland, wherever we live now.

See Especially those of us who think of New Jersey as our homeland, wherever we live now.

*can*actually read it and would check for more errors, much appreciated: https://bytebucket.org/chemoelectric/pur

There have been the usual typos and so forth, as well.

I avoided the usual notational confusion by calling the probability of coincidence simply P

^{coincidence}:)

I have been clarifying the presentation at

<link>

The joint probability result is the one that is supposed to be impossible without spooky superluminal action at a distance, but here it operates in an ordinary manner (if ‘moving tangent vectors’ can be considered ordinary objects). To make the counterproof even more devastating, the ‘correlations’ are between two experimental runs on the same apparatus.

To reproduce the error made by the orthodoxy, instead of doing an integration over theta, you would do a double integration over two different variables, one for each cosine-square in the integrand. This error is what is ‘justified’ by claiming it ‘encodes’ ‘locality’.

It’s absolutely astonishing what theoretical physics has become, but then it seems less so when I consider how overblown the reputation of physicists is in our society. We would actually expect such incompetence and orthodoxy in many other academic fields.

My disproof of the basis for ‘quantum non-locality’ is complete, though not fully discussed, as it were: The joint probability result is the one that is supposed to be impossible without spooky superluminal action at a distance, but here it operates in an ordinary manner (if ‘moving tangent vectors’ can be considered ordinary objects). To make the counterproof even more devastating, the ‘correlations’ are between two experimental runs on the same apparatus.

To reproduce the error made by the orthodoxy, instead of doing an integration over theta, you would do a double integration over two different variables, one for each cosine-square in the integrand. This error is what is ‘justified’ by claiming it ‘encodes’ ‘locality’.

It’s absolutely astonishing what theoretical physics has become, but then it seems less so when I consider how overblown the reputation of physicists is in our society. We would actually expect such incompetence and orthodoxy in many other academic fields.

I noticed something different

Between ‘modern probability theory’

And ‘calculus of plausible inference’.

Suppose you want to make a robot.

Suppose you want it free of prejudice.

Then you must make that robot

So it never adds a new assumption.

It happens often that some quantity

Shows up in your expressions

But what you know about that quantity

Amounts to less than a hill of beans.

A robot, faced with this situation,

And programmed according to the ‘moderns’,

Must come to you for more instructions,

To be given a density for the quantity.

The human must make a declaration,

‘Assume that X is uniformly distributed’,

Which the robot on its own cannot do,

Because it never makes assumptions.

In calculus of plausible inference, though,

The robots are commanded as follows:

‘You must never neglect what you know,

And you must never disagree with your fellow.’

Thus the robot must choose a density

That every other robot would have chosen,

Which always gives the same conclusion,

No matter how you integrate, etc.

Of course it ends up the same function,

Just forced by logic instead of assumed,

A little weightier in human judgment,

And keeping robots off our lazy backs.