All of sonic2's Comments + Replies

Wow! Ban short selling for a few days and watch the logical fallicies fly!

Regarding reductionism and quarks-- Recently physicists have become more interested in 'complexity'. From Physics World survey Dec. 1999-

"Reductionism has failed in a grandiose manner," Itamar Procaccia Giorgio Margaritondo, (the challenge for physics is) "... to develop a general theory of complex systems, in particular of living systems, without relying on the 'reductionist' approach, which is based on the illusion that complex systems can be explained based on an understanding of their more elementary components."

I mention this because sometimes people think that the reductionist appproach is argued on philosophic grounds only.

Before accepting this view of probability and the underlying assumptions about the nature of reality one should look at the experimental evidence. Try Groeblacher, Paterek, et al arXiv.0704.2529 (Aug 6 2007) These experiments test various assumptions regarding non=local realism and conclude= "...giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned"

1rasthedestroyer100
""Why do I think I have free will?" "Because I do," is a perfectly good answer (assuming free will)." Disagree. Notice how this answer is only 'good' assuming free will. But our assumption of free will is exactly what we are seeking to understand the cause of. We can assume free will is correct and that this is adequate to justify our answer ('because I do'), but then we have only re-posited the assumption in the consequent.