coincidence :: does it exist?

Post Reply New Topic

I think I may have pinpointed part of the source of our disagreement. My definition of coincidence was that they were events which could not be predicted, even in principle. I realize now that the language there isn't really adequate, so I'll rephrase: a coincidence is an event for which the possibility of predictability has been completely ruled out.

Under pre-Bell QM, this was not the case: events couldn't be predicted, but there was some hope that they might be someday. Post-Bell, the existence of coincidences was indeed shown to be a requirement of QM.



Bell's Theorem does indeed suggest it is impossible to predict the instrument's spin measurement at least some of the time, and at least in the real world (where there is no access to nonlocal hidden variables).

Jeremy

I doubt if is that is true, and I think people always have thought that way in the past, no matter how wrong their assumptions were. But sience as we know it, has not existed long enough to be at stage already I think. But that just my opinion about it of course.

But I do find it very interesting what you both have to say about this toddjh and anarkhos! I do not know enough about the subject (yet) to add much to this, but I really like reading your ideas about it

I agree with the person on here who remarked 'we don't know reality'.
You have to disassociate the science, however complex it is, from the social fields and contexts which gives it an audience.
There may be infinitely complex quantum mechanical models to show that events can be almost unfathomably unlikely. In science everything we discover is interpreted in terms of different frameworks. Like if I walked through a wall (QM probability 1 in 1 billion) the phenomena would be rationalised as an improbable combiniton of paths of subatomic particles.
In REALITY, my materialising through a wall could have been the result of a highly powerful force which acts when a static object is about to be struck by a human being. We don't know what we will discover, but a postulation like that would only be made in the field of (wall human penetrations) OR SOMETHING
The fraework of QM has its place at a particular time in history. It is completely attached to society in general, it assumes its own culture, to the extent that the most rational scientists will make observations and scientific judgements according to social pressures, to impress others, to perpetuate lies, to keep the social engine going which situates them in a comfortable standard of living, all because they are the doyens of a particular fad which has gripped the public.
So don't think only in scientific terms here
And DON'T spend ayons of web space dismembering my post if it is slightly scientific inaccurate......

Religion must embrace knowledge.