I don't really want to get into another long, and fruitless discussion
on quantum mechanics. However there was an interesting article that I
read recently, I think in the New Scientist, though I don't have the
reference.

I liked the point made about hidden variables. A mathematician was
quoted as saying that it would be odd if there weren't any hidden
variables as, without them, how would objects showing statistical
regularities 'know' what regularities they were supposed to be
showing.

I thought it a very nice point. After all, statistics (though some
invest it with more god-like powers) only shows regularities because
they are caused by an underlying behaviour. Truly random things don't
and can't show statistical regularities - if they do it proves that
they aren't random.

On 1 May, 08:05, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> I don't really want to get into another long, and fruitless discussion
> on quantum mechanics. However there was an interesting article that I
> read recently, I think in the New Scientist, though I don't have the
> reference.
>
> I liked the point made about hidden variables. A mathematician was
> quoted as saying that it would be odd if there weren't any hidden
> variables as, without them, how would objects showing statistical
> regularities 'know' what regularities they were supposed to be
> showing.
>
> I thought it a very nice point. After all, statistics (though some
> invest it with more god-like powers) only shows regularities because
> they are caused by an underlying behaviour. Truly random things don't
> and can't show statistical regularities - if they do it proves that
> they aren't random.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how absolute randomness could be
demonstrated.....

Dave

On May 1, 10:46 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 1 May, 08:05, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't really want to get into another long, and fruitless discussion
> > on quantum mechanics. However there was an interesting article that I
> > read recently, I think in the New Scientist, though I don't have the
> > reference.
>
> > I liked the point made about hidden variables. A mathematician was
> > quoted as saying that it would be odd if there weren't any hidden
> > variables as, without them, how would objects showing statistical
> > regularities 'know' what regularities they were supposed to be
> > showing.
>
> > I thought it a very nice point. After all, statistics (though some
> > invest it with more god-like powers) only shows regularities because
> > they are caused by an underlying behaviour. Truly random things don't
> > and can't show statistical regularities - if they do it proves that
> > they aren't random.
>
> Anyhow, I'm not sure how absolute randomness could be
> demonstrated.....
>
If you had a substance that displayed radioactive decay but had no
half-life, that should do it.

On May 1, 10:20 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 1, 10:46 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > On 1 May, 08:05, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > I don't really want to get into another long, and fruitless discussion
> > > on quantum mechanics. However there was an interesting article that I
> > > read recently, I think in the New Scientist, though I don't have the
> > > reference.
>
> > > I liked the point made about hidden variables. A mathematician was
> > > quoted as saying that it would be odd if there weren't any hidden
> > > variables as, without them, how would objects showing statistical
> > > regularities 'know' what regularities they were supposed to be
> > > showing.
>
> > > I thought it a very nice point. After all, statistics (though some
> > > invest it with more god-like powers) only shows regularities because
> > > they are caused by an underlying behaviour. Truly random things don't
> > > and can't show statistical regularities - if they do it proves that
> > > they aren't random.
>
> > Anyhow, I'm not sure how absolute randomness could be
> > demonstrated.....
>
> If you had a substance that displayed radioactive decay but had no
> half-life, that should do it.

In that case, there might be hidden variables causing the lack of
randomness.

Hidden variable theories have no power because they bring nothing new
& substantial to the table for us to feast on. Quarks are also, in a
sense, hidden because they are always found in bound states (neutrons,
protons...) But as theoretical constructs they flawlessly explain the
generation of post-decay particles. Hidden variable theories explain
nothing & make no predictions beyond those of the Copenhagen
interpretation.

Why do you quote a mathematician on quantum theory? Would you quote an
accountant to make a point in macro-economic theory? Mathematicans
provide useful tools for physicists, but you keep the tool maker in
the tool shed, not in the board room.

On May 1, 5:36 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On May 1, 10:20 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 10:46 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > > On 1 May, 08:05, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > > I don't really want to get into another long, and fruitless discussion
> > > > on quantum mechanics. However there was an interesting article that I
> > > > read recently, I think in the New Scientist, though I don't have the
> > > > reference.
>
> > > > I liked the point made about hidden variables. A mathematician was
> > > > quoted as saying that it would be odd if there weren't any hidden
> > > > variables as, without them, how would objects showing statistical
> > > > regularities 'know' what regularities they were supposed to be
> > > > showing.
>
> > > > I thought it a very nice point. After all, statistics (though some
> > > > invest it with more god-like powers) only shows regularities because
> > > > they are caused by an underlying behaviour. Truly random things don't
> > > > and can't show statistical regularities - if they do it proves that
> > > > they aren't random.
>
> > > Anyhow, I'm not sure how absolute randomness could be
> > > demonstrated.....
>
> > If you had a substance that displayed radioactive decay but had no
> > half-life, that should do it.
>
> In that case, there might be hidden variables causing the lack of
> randomness.
>
How would you suppose that they'd do that? I think that they'd have to
be remarkably cunning variables....

In any event, it doesn't matter if there are, or are not, hidden
variables involved. I was simply remarking that a radioactive element
with no half-life would be evidence of randomness. How anything
achieved randomness would be quite another matter, I doubt that it is
possible at all.
>
> Hidden variable theories have no power because they bring nothing new
> & substantial to the table for us to feast on. Quarks are also, in a
> sense, hidden because they are always found in bound states (neutrons,
> protons...) But as theoretical constructs they flawlessly explain the
> generation of post-decay particles. Hidden variable theories explain
> nothing & make no predictions beyond those of the Copenhagen
> interpretation.
>
It isn't really a concern about theory, it's a concern about what is
the case.
>
> Why do you quote a mathematician on quantum theory? Would you quote an
> accountant to make a point in macro-economic theory? Mathematicans
> provide useful tools for physicists, but you keep the tool maker in
> the tool shed, not in the board room.
>
I was quoting a mathematician on the subject of statistics.

>I liked the point made about hidden
> variables. A mathematician was quoted
> as saying that it would be odd if there
> weren't any hidden variables as, without
> them, how would objects showing
> statistical regularities 'know' what
> regularities they were supposed to be
> showing. 


One underlying explanatory level seems to beg yet another for it--an
insanely infinite regress that looks more like constructivism than
exposing reality as it is independent of humans. In terms of what is
"real", it might be better to surrender to "miracle regularities" at an
earlier stage (parsimony fashion), and classify further explanatory
developments as language or descriptive systems that are "useful and
effective for something" rather than involving entities that have
literal "external world" existence. Thus the 20th-century inclination
among empiricists for disparaging (metaphysical) being and retreating to
language. 

But a nominalist-like lack of "realness" for deeper theories should by
no means stop them from being produced and tested. As Carnap indicates
below, it impedes progress to dogmatically oppose a broad endeavor
outright before it has fully demonstrated itself to be useless. Just
because a particular system involving hidden variables may yield no
effective fruit doesn't justify barring the development of others. 

"The acceptance or rejection of abstract linguistic forms, just as the
acceptance or rejection of any other linguistic forms in any branch of
science, will finally be decided by their efficiency as instruments, the
ratio of the results achieved to the amount and complexity of the
efforts required. To decree dogmatic prohibitions of certain linguistic
forms instead of testing them by their success or failure in practical
use, is worse than futile; it is positively harmful because it may
obstruct scientific progress. The history of science shows examples of
such prohibitions based on prejudices deriving from religious,
mythological, metaphysical, or other irrational sources, which slowed up
the developments for shorter or longer periods of time. Let us learn
from the lessons of history. Let us grant to those who work in any
special field of investigation the freedom to use any form of expression
which seems useful to them; the work in the field will sooner or later
lead to the elimination of those forms which have no useful function.
Let us be cautious in making assertions and critical in examining them,
but tolerant in permitting linguistic forms." --Rudolf Carnap,
'Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology' 

~~~Drew

=ATTENTION= This is a shared internet device (non-PC). Post a response
whenever possible. Do not reply by email unless the sender supplied an
alternative address in the body. Failure to heed this advice could
result in a message being inadvertently read or deleted by other than
the intended party. Only responsible personnel affected by recent
habitat restrictions have been granted access. 

_ _ _ :-) Thanks, 
_ _ _  the assistant admonitor

On May 1, 8:53 pm, n...@webtv.net (The Averdein Building) wrote:
> >
> One underlying explanatory level seems to beg yet another for it--an
> insanely infinite regress that looks more like constructivism than
> exposing reality as it is independent of humans. In terms of what is
> "real", it might be better to surrender to "miracle regularities" at an
> earlier stage (parsimony fashion), and classify further explanatory
> developments as language or descriptive systems that are "useful and
> effective for something" rather than involving entities that have
> literal "external world" existence. Thus the 20th-century inclination
> among empiricists for disparaging (metaphysical) being and retreating to
> language.
>
The South African phrase 'Ja, well, no, fine' comes to mind. You quote
Carnap, but I think he wasn't much given to mysticism.

What makes an infinite regress 'insane'? What makes a regress
'infinite'?

Why roll over and die with mystical 'miracle regularities', when you
have the alternative of explanation?

You have, I think, missed the point of my first posting. I wasn't
suggestng that we needed any mystical quest for hidden variables
because the various QM 'interpretations' were unsatisfactory. Quite
the reverse. I'm all for sticking to the equations and ignoring
fanciful metaphorical 'interpretations' - they're just that, fanciful
and metaphorical.

Rather I was pointing out the sensible point that a statistical
regularity requires causation. Of course there are spurious
statistical regularities, but even these have a cause. The notion of a
'random' or, alternatively, 'uncaused' result that nevertheess shows
statistical regularity is a nonsensical one. There is no need to
ponder any QM or other reality, the mathematics is sound. If there is
a statistical regularity, then there is a cause for it - even if it
might be experimental error. There is no room for an uncaused
statistical regularity anywhere apart from the realm of magic.

If it's magic that you're keen on, then I think conversations with
witches should be more your aim rather than conversations with
rational people.