Hacker News Reader

Comment by ikeboy | Hacker News Reader

>Interestingly, someone only observing results of a probabilistic event will eventually learn to predict events with an accuracy approaching ideal

This relies on various unstated assumptions.

I would deny the assumption that an event can be probablistic in nature. There are only ever predictions. The distinction between a probablistic world and a deterministic world is incoherent.

View on HN

If quantum reality is objective, then probabilistic reality is objective.

Deterministic probability like Chaos or second law of thermodynamics imply the existence of incomplete information. This type of probabilistic reality might be subjective.

I don't think that's a coherent concept. It's not clear how one can assert that a particular model of reality is "correct" outside of any predictions than it makes.

How do you resolve the problems raised by Bell's theorem?

Bell's theorem rules out local realism. I view realism as incoherent, so I'm certainly not committed to local realism.

You said the distinction between a probabilistic world and a deterministic one is incoherent. But if there is no local realism, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe your position as saying all events are probabilistic rather than none of them?

No. All events being probabilistic is still realism, just in a weaker sense than Bell.

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws because I don't really understand what your position is from the things you said in this thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com