On May 7, 9:56 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
> I haven't got anything new to say.  We ran over many of these
> arguments back in November 2002.  The thread started out as 'Cuba
> Crisis 1962' and was changed to 'Chance'.  I raised the 'half life'
> issue and Lance produced some 'heavy' quotes favouring  an explanation
> in terms of indeterminism rather than hidden variables.  You seem to
> have changed your position somewhat.  You might find it interesting to
> have a look.
>
Yes, I think that I have changed my view. It isn't, though, quite so
much a change of view as an appreciation of the argument. I'm still of
the view that the interpretation is more of a pedagogic just-so story
that can help or hinder understanding the matter itself, but isn't the
same as an explanation - which is contained in the maths.

I like the arguments for indeterminacy, I certainly understand its
appeal, even if, when examined, it doesn't help in the sky-hook
restoration process. I also see the argument against hidden variables,
based, as far as gut-feel is concerned, in an objection to a reliance
on some 'mystical' yet-to-be-discovered but unexplained thing. What I
like is the elegance and simplicity of this observation which I raised
as the 'nice point' of this discussion. It seems difficult to refute.

I'm perfectly happy to admit changes of view and, indeed,
inconsistencies and lack of view on my part. Fortunately I'm not
obliged, even to myself, to be consistent at all times with myself.

Looking at some of the posts you refer to, and they are interesting, I
agree with our inclination to spot patterns where there aren't any -
in white noise, for example. I also think that this most recent
argument is different from that that simply relies upon statistical
regularity. As we discussed then, 'g' is a statistical manifestation
that has predictive power and appears to turn up behind apparently
quite different tests. In the light of this most recent discussion, I
think we have to, as we did then, argue that there is something, or
are some things, that cause 'g', otherwise it couldn't turn up in all
these different places so consistently.

I think that the quote from Lance that you mention is:

"
Randomness at the quantum level is certainly part of a larger
theoretical
framework.
Apparently many people, notably Einstein, believed that a deeper
deterministic theory would be found to subsume QM.
"The search for such theories has come to be known as the search for
hidden
variable theories. The term _hidden variables_  is picturesquely
descriptive
of what is desired. The hope is that back of the probabilistic
variables
observed in quantum mechanics will be found deterministic causal
variables
that will account for the observed probabilistic phenomena, as is
characteristic of classical statistical mechanics. [...] The analysis
of
hidden-variable theories has had a complicated history in modern
physics,
beginning with the celebrated proof of von Neumann that dispersion-
free
states and, consequently, hidden variables are impossible in quantum
mechanics. It is important to realize what the connection between
dispersion-free states and hidden variables is. Dispersion-free
states
correspond intuitively to classical states in which position and
momentum,
for example, are definitely and exactly determined. The central idea
is that
hidden variables lead to the specification of such dispersion-free
states.
Various improvements that weaken the assumptions of von Neumann [made
in his
celebrated proof] have been made subsequently in the literature. [...]
In a
beautiful series of papers beginning with Bell [1964 and 1966] a much
more
reasonable and intuitive treatment of hidden variables has been given,
and
their impossibility has been demonstrated experimentally at a rather
satisfactory level. Without entering into the details, essentially
what Bell
has been able to show is that if we start with the paradox of
Einstein,
Podolsky, and Rosen (1935), which argues for the incompleteness of
quantum
mechanics, [...] and if we insist that a hidden variable theory that
removes
the incompleteness must satisfy natural conditions of causality and
locality, then by considering a simple system of two particles of
spin
one-half, these conditions cannot be satisfied. There can be no
hidden
variable theory for such two-particle systems. Within the context of
this
analysis, Bell was able to derive an inequality that has come to be
known as
'Bell's inequality', and this has been used by Clauser [et al. 1969]
and
Freedman and Clauser [1972] to show that by use of Bell's inequality
the
existence of local hidden variables imposes restrictions that are, as
Bell
originally showed, in conflict with quantum mechanics, and that,
second, new
experimental data are in agreement with quantum mechanics. Moreover,
well
within the accuracy of experimental error, the data violate the
restrictions
required by local hidden variable theories. [...] I think it is fair
to say
that the outcome of this whole sequence of papers, both theoretical
and
experimental, is to provide perhaps the most conceptually satisfying
confirmation of the ultimately statistical character of quantum
mechanics
that we yet have." [Suppes, p. 23-25, with several omissions].
"

As far as I can see, this doesn't address radioactive decay. There's a
whole discussion of the paradox of non-locality here
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox - but, again, it
doesn't address radioactive decay - which doesn't rely on non-local qm
effects. The radioactive decay question is mentioned in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
but, again, there's no contradiction to the particular point of this
thread.