Are you referring to this interpreation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory ? Seems like it is not widely accepted as it violates other widely held beliefs about the laws of physics (non local interactions).
its mathematically equivalent but not equivalently accepted => shows how widely stupid most physicists are, they're like a ****ing religion. Also shows why my phd in physics best friend just sent me this:
I'm learning about an infinity in quantum field theory
I'll let you know how bull**** it is
Pretty much bull****. It really is just adding two singularities together to get zero.
Also he just changed his integration limits to avoid a singularity
i warned my friend before about this, i think it was called "renormalization" aka "lets just pretend the math does something else"
Anyway, what you're saying does not contradict my statement at all, unless your claim is that the model you refer to provides better predictions about quantum mechanics.
no the results / predictions are the same, its just that the interpretation is less pathological
In traditional measure theory there are some non measurable sets. Not sure how that invalidates probability. Probability is only defined in terms of measurable sets.
wtf do you mean by traditional, lebesgue is modern bro, traditional would be reimann. is there is a new widely accepted measure theory that people care about? i've been reading ams notices for 6+ years and havent seen anything new
oh wait the rest of the sentence is innacruate like the rest of your post: Almost every set is non measurable; Probability is defined as being the lebesuge measure of a set. The sets with no lebegsgue measure have no probability.
The bertrand paradox doesn't seem very paradoxical to me. Obviously the way you choose something "at random" can affect the probabilities. Even in discrete probability if I choose a number 1-12 by rolling a 12 sided die or by adding two 6 sided dice that will affect the probability of the various outcomes..
no
there is a reason why its called a
paradox. your example is moot cause rolling 2 six sided dice does not choose a number 1 - 12.
That's not a defined operation. But by similar argument, would you say you also don't believe in sets? If A is the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, then is A a member of A?
do you believe in unicorns?
What is "real life"? Everything that anyone interprets as "real life" is just a mental model that makes predictions about future observations. "Particles", "Quantum Mechanics", etc included.
real life is the stuff that remains true irregardless of what mathematical axioms you assume.
guess some might argue "well the real numbers aren't applicable at all to the real world (as defined in terms of particles) because in the real world everything is actually discrete"
most physicists would disagree and claim that space is mathematically continuous
None of this indicates to me that any of these concepts are "ridiculous". They are pretty clearly useful to a lot of people. Are you saying you never make decisions by considering probability of various future events?
the concepts are useful, i said that. what is ridiculous is that physicists push the idea that the physics model is what defines the universe, and not vise-versa. you especially see it with the guys on tv going on about finding a perfect unified theory of everything: an equation for the universe. not going to happen if they keep using math that doesnt apply to the real world (like infinity)
Ok. It all depends on your definition of "exists" but saying "numbers are abstract concepts" is fine with me too.
The chair in this room "exists" right? But the chair is made up of a collection of atoms, and only the abstract concept of "chair" joins them together in my mind to form a single object that "exists". Similarly the concept of "one" is a way that my mind can describe my observations (I see "one" chair). And even "atoms" "particles" etc are just abstract concepts that we use to make sense of our observations. Just like "chair", or numbers. Most would probably say that numbers are a more abstract concept since they are applicable to a wider range of situations.
abstract concept of 1
abstract concept of unicorn
same thing
i can sit on a ****ing chair, i cant sit on a ****ing 1 and i cant sit on a ****ing unicorn
