🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/10/2010 6:10 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote

> You change one atom and another changes, how is that an illusion?

That's not what quantum entaglement states anyway, so it's certainly an 
illusion.

QE predicts a certain correlation between measurements on engangled 
particles. In some measurement situations the correlation is perfect, 
but since the events representing those measures can have space-like 
separation, there is not possibility of having one measurement cause 
both results.

So maybe we're just looking at it the wrong way, and the image QE gives 
us is an illusion.


>>> I've heard your "I DUNNO" copout again and again, leave it.
>>
>> Remember, I'm not saying that your matches are wrong. I'm saying that
>> other people won't be able to spot them, which will mess up the test.
>> You think the matches are self-evident, but they're not to me. I see
>> no reason to think they'd be self-evident to other people.
>>
>> Sylvia
>
>
> Very technical questions answered with quotes from a novel, you don't seem
> to want to see how a targeted novel of quotes will be detectable.
>
> Just ask me the 5 questions again with 5 page numbers.
>
> Doing a backwards guess the question objective test is just not going to
> happen with you.
>
> Ask and check the answers whether they answer your question.
>
> Just make a judgment call if they're intelligent or random.
>
> Why do you need 200 posts to see if a random quote answers a question?

I'm as capable of post-facto rationalisation as you are (well, perhaps 
not as capable, but close to it). Unlike you, I recognise the danger, 
and avoid experimental situations were it can have an impact.

Sylvia.