Log in

No account? Create an account

What we used to be

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

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


Well, one hopes it’s fixed. :) If anyone can actually read it and would check for more errors, much appreciated: https://bytebucket.org/chemoelectric/pure-geomalg/wiki/nonloco_scribbles.xml

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

I avoided the usual notational confusion by calling the probability of coincidence simply Pcoincidence :)

that is to say

I don’t have my bell disproof quite right, yet. It’s too bad the physicists tend not to spell out the details, but more or less rely on a presumed prior knowledge of electromagnetic wave theory. It ends up with me having to work out details, and probably with a lot of readers, even physicists, going ‘Huh?’


I did the equivalent of turning in my test without the last minute check that catches the major oversight that can be corrected before time is up if you just hold onto the test for longer.

My disproof is done

My disproof of the basis for ‘quantum non-locality’ is complete, though not fully discussed, as it were: <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.

While barking up a wrong tree

While barking up a wrong tree
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.

Latest Month

June 2016