Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: John Kennaugh on 10 Apr 2005 16:40 Bilge writes > John Kennaugh: > >Bilge writes > >> harry: > > > >> >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. > >> > > >> >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific > >> >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen > >> >without any cause? > >> > >> Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. > > > >What makes you think there is no cause simply because we do not > >understand what it is? > > (1) Because the statistics are evidence _for_ a probabilistic process > not merely a lack of knowing what the process is, > > (2) A probabilistic process makes a lot more physical sense than > a determistic one. > > >We know that radioactive decay occurs at a quite > > Don't say ``we.'' What you know about any physics amounts to the >material needed for one episode of sesame street. > > >precise rate for a massive number of atoms. This surely implies that > >some condition in the individual atom has a precise chance of occurring. > > The fundamental ``chance of occuring'' to which you refer may be >specified by 3 factors: (1)The coupling constant of the force responsible >for the transition, (2) number of possible final states to which the >initial state might make a transition, (3) the matrix elements between the >initial and final states, otherwise known as conservation laws. The >coupling constant determines the fundamental probability for an >interaction. That means what you regard as a force is a probability of an >interaction. > > >A one armed bandit pays out due to a cause - the wheels have lined up. > >The fact that we are unable to predict when that happens does not > >suggest that coins pour out without cause. > > > Gee, why didn't I think of that... Oh. Wait a second. I _did_ >think of that. Long ago. It's just been a while since I've >encountered that shallow argument. See > > www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf It comes up as unreadable. > >for details before posting the same strawman. > -- John Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal |