Proof of nonexistence of free will

There is no need to take a degree in quantum physics to understand the correlations observed in Bell's inequality test experiments. Bell's inequality is quite straightforward to understand, and it is very well explained in Nick Herbert's book "Quantum Reality." If you go read it you will confirm what I am saying. As Nick Herbert shows in his book, the experimental refutation of local realism does not depend on quantum physics: it involves only the confrontation between experiment results and Bell's inequality. Sorry to insist: read the book.

Quote:

There is no need to take a degree in quantum physics to understand the correlations observed in Bell's inequality test experiments. Bell's inequality is quite straightforward to understand, and it is very well explained in Nick Herbert's book "Quantum Reality." If you go read it you will confirm what I am saying. As Nick Herbert shows in his book, the experimental refutation of local realism does not depend on quantum physics: it involves only the confrontation between experiment results and Bell's inequality. Sorry to insist: read the book.

I have my own book on Entanglement called "Entanglement: the greatest mystery in physics" by Amir D. Aczel. It is really a good book because it goes through the history of physics from the beginning of quantum mechanics and describes the talks between Einstein and Bohr and others from their meeting like at the Solvay Conferrences and through writings. He then goes through Bell's theorem showing some math but it is not necessary to get the point of the book its just extra information. He describes several experiments and how particles are entangled. But without knowing exactly how the inequality is created in the context of quantum mechanics and the experiments, knowing all the variables can you truely understand what is being done. No summary is going to do it for me because I truely believe something is wrong here since relativity is not violated and the other reasons I described before. Do you know exactly how Bell came to the inequality and have thought through every possible way it's assumptions could have been misleading? Inside the theory of quantum mechanics this won't be done because quantum mechanics cannot even explain its use of probability distributions even the wave function was verified soley based on experiment not derived from more basic principles and so nothing can be known before the wave function. But the wavefunction was also taken from classical physic's mechanical wave function, Displacement(x) = Asinkx + Bcoskx, and combined with conservation of energy in terms of plank's constant (another forced principle that cannot be more fundamentally understood within quantum mechanics) and then some derivatives are taken and other manipulations occur and you get the time-independent Schrodinger equation (a wave function). Quantum mechanics was designed in a way that forces it to be a self contained theory and so unless someone comes along with the know how to go through all these generalizations and sort out what is really going on, we will continue to be tricked into thinking really weird stuff is happening and yet not ever be content because things like relativity will always prevail.

Could the concept of entanglement apply to the relations between the sexes guigus? Could it even derive from thinking about that matter? I sometimes enjoy thinking that relativity itself might have been inspired by thoughts of what Einstein was doing at certain times and how it was seen by the one he was doing it to.

We do have two objects in a mechanical system, setting aside any religious or sentimental notions as the atheist unavoidably must do. And they are objects which are energised, separated in space and cannot be described without reference to each other. They are "entangled" even if one is nothing but a mental image. Each is, to the other, a remote system with observable physical properties.

Einstein said:

Quote:

I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist.

In the light of my thesis that is rather amusing don't you think and implies that he was a bit of a misogynist at bottom?

But entanglement happens in a scale that is very different from the scale of lovers.

Quote:

But entanglement happens in a scale that is very different from the scale of lovers.

Surely it applies to the solar system, galaxies and the universe.

I don't see how an atheist could avoid applying it to lovers who, in his world, are moved by exclusively physical forces. Unless he is only an atheist when he wants to be which is the equivalent of piss-balling about with words for personal reasons.

Is the atheist unavoidably "entangled" in the Christian ideology and his condition confused by his being unaware of it or choosing to repress it (see Ignore function) in order to hold his argument together.

Being an atheist does not necessarily mean being a materialist, although today people do this association quasi-automatically, as you just did.

Jesus Christ...

Quote:

Being an atheist does not necessarily mean being a materialist, although today people do this association quasi-automatically, as you just did.

There is no automaticity, quasi or full blown irrational reflex. Explain if you will how an atheist can avoid being a materialist. An assertions that an atheist isn't "necessarily" a materialist is hardly an argument.

I'm only stuck fast with the idea because I've never seen it disputed. I'm quite willing to be enlightened. In fact I readily welcome being.

Quote:

Jesus Christ...

That is ambiguous guingus.

Quote:

Jesus Christ...

That is ambiguous guingus.

I checked out the last one in the list and I am not sure how any conversation can take place with any meaning and I'm including your post. And it worked for me. I could see no meaning in your post I'm afraid and if that is because of my own shortcomings then so be it. I am much too set in my ways to accept that everything is nothing and that nothing is nothing which it must be if everything is nothing unless nothing is not a part of everything which it can't be because nothing is no thing (the absence of thing) and everything is everything else.

I plead guilty to your remonstrances. I begin at the end of my nose. And if somebody has failed to get the water hot for my bath tonight it will definitely not be nothing.

spendius wrote:

I plead guilty to your remonstrances. I begin at the end of my nose. And if somebody has failed to get the water hot for my bath tonight it will definitely not be nothing.

Quote:

It happens that the cold is the absence of heat, hence is indeed a kind of nothingness. Therefore, it shouldn't bother you...

cold is a " KIND " of nothingness ?

a state of low energy , but never an example of nothingness

Quote:

Now trying to talk seriously again (I never give up): have you ever tried to conceive of nothing? Did you ever realize it is impossible? It is like if you knew what nothing was, but when you try to imagine it, you just can't... Try this, and see for yourself that you don't really know what nothing is.

nothing is the abssence of the utter lack of substance and the practical lack of a substance , which while existing outside of your situation does indeed still exist ( money , water , air , food etc )

guigus wrote:

spendius wrote:

I plead guilty to your remonstrances. I begin at the end of my nose. And if somebody has failed to get the water hot for my bath tonight it will definitely not be nothing.

Quote:

It happens that the cold is the absence of heat, hence is indeed a kind of nothingness. Therefore, it shouldn't bother you...

cold is a " KIND " of nothingness ?

a state of low energy , but never an example of nothingness

Quote:

Now trying to talk seriously again (I never give up): have you ever tried to conceive of nothing? Did you ever realize it is impossible? It is like if you knew what nothing was, but when you try to imagine it, you just can't... Try this, and see for yourself that you don't really know what nothing is.

nothing is the abssence of the utter lack of substance and the practical lack of a substance , which while existing outside of your situation does indeed still exist ( money , water , air , food etc )