Open thread, February 15-28, 2013

David_Gerard

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.

I'm not sure that's what they mean either. I take them as saying 'humans can flip in a quantum-influenced way', not as 'all coin flips are quantum random' (as shminux assumed, hence the coin-flipping machine would be a disproof) or 'all human coin flips are quantum random' (as you assume, in which case magicians' control of coin flips would be a disproof).

I'd guess something along the line of typical human coin flips being quantum-influenced.

0Elithrion13y

I'm honestly not sure. I find myself confused. According to the article, they say: [...] But what would that look like exactly? Naively, it seems like the robot that flips the coin heads every time satisfies this (classical probability: ~1). Or maybe it uses a pseudo-random number generator to determine what's going to come up next and flips the coin that particular way and then we bet on the next flip (constituting "a use of classical probabilities that is clearly isolated from the physical, quantum world"). But presumably that's not what they mean. What counterexample would they want, then?

1Shmi13y

If their model makes no falsifiable predictions, it's not an interesting one.

9

Open thread, February 15-28, 2013

9

9

9

Open thread, February 15-28, 2013

9

9