Normal

The how is not irrelevent. We consider atoms to be colorless, so when we see a black cat, we wouldn't reduce the cat to black atoms because we know how atoms can arrange themselves to absorb and reflect certain colors. The same reduction is being done in terms of casuality (and the law of large numbers), but the how is mysteriously missing.

Normal

If you admit electrons aren't alive, how is Monod's work relevent to the OP?

StillDreaming

If it is relevant, then please explain which predictions would change if we do know or do not know the how.

For example, if we build a pseudo random generator, we do know the how. If someone were to replace this pseudo random generator by a (hypothetical) real random generator - of which we know nothing except that it has the same probability distribution as our pseudo random generator - how could we notice it? We can't, because we're observing the same probability distribution in both cases.

If no predictions change, then the how is not relevant for making predictions.

Normal

The problem is that the law of large numbers (shown here) states that the probability system has to converge to some number. It has to have an expected value, once the trials approach infinity. An indeterministic system will have no expected value.

Jinto

And the numbers DO have an expected value, genius, so the reference is valid.

Since QM is probabilistic, I don't see how the hell that is even relevant.

Jinto

By the way, still waiting for the following:

Normal

Your understanding of quantum mechanics and probability is shrewd at best, especially to be making these types of assertions with the subtle ad hominems.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~j...ncertainty.pdf

Normal

By the way, still waiting for that definition of chair.

Jinto

From page 2 of the aticle you cited:

"In quantum mechanics, the expected value of an operator is..."

I believe that refutes your point about QM having no expected values.

In other words, you're not going to actually support your argument. How very sad. But anyway, thanks for linking me to a paper that refutes your whole point.

Normal

It helps to actually read the article, and not stop reading once you see "expected value". The article clearly shows the HUP derivation from the so called "expected value".

By admiting you can't define a chair, you've supported my argument. How very sad.

Why bother arguing with you? You don't care about the details, you just care about being right. The article I showed you did not show an explicit expected value, in fact, it derived the uncertainty principle from the "expected value" you claim exists.