Victor Chang's killer released from prison

[Killian Kalthorne]

I am glad you approve.

[alanschu]

That's a judge's job to figure out, not mine.

 

 

Clearly not, because you have no problems voicing your disapproval of a judge's decision.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hey, anyone can give an opinion.

[Walsingham]

I am glad you approve.

 

Why isn't there a sarcasm emoticon?

[Rostere]

As I suspected, that went way over my head. After a bit of research though, it seems that Christian's work hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed journals yet. It may be that they are pulling a Galileo on the poor guy, but it also may be that he's simply wrong. Calling that evidence against a well established theory to support determinism is stretching it a bit, methinks.

 

At any rate, a counterexample to a theorem doesn't exclude the possibility that a version of the theorem with revised premises (as the theorem itself cannot be disproven, and it's the interpretation of EPR's topology that the paper attacks) can be formulated, no?

 

Thing is, the math is right. The open question is about which mathematical model is right to represent the experiment. It's not evidence that I'm right, but it kind of supports my theory, if you say so. Clifford Algebra goes way back in time, but my impression is that it's really "in" among mathematicians right now.

 

Obviously this article would be the most important in "determinism contra randomness" since Bell's paper, which in turn was the most important one since Newton. I bet no journals would risk their credibility by publishing such stuff without being 100% sure they are correct.

 

At any rate, a counterexample to a theorem doesn't exclude the possibility that a version of the theorem with revised premises (as the theorem itself cannot be disproven, and it's the interpretation of EPR's topology that the paper attacks) can be formulated, no?

 

I think a few things got mixed up here...

[213374U]

Thing is, the math is right.

Heh, that's a pretty bold claim to make. Further, the math in Bell's is correct, too, but according to Christian, the flaw therein isn't in the math.

 

Again, I'm waiting until I see it published in a peer-reviewed source. If the man is right, any publication would kill to be the one that publishes the epitaph to Bell's theorem. I need to do a bit of research on FQXi 2009 which Christian attended and see how things went.

 

You still have to come up with something better than QT to sustain a deterministic universe, even if we accept that Christian is right.

 

 

I think a few things got mixed up here...

 

Possibly. Judging by the author's work, it's not the math in Bell's paper that he's attacking, but the way he chose to interpret the topology in EPR's paradox. By using Clifford's he's re-written the topology and found a counterexample to Bell's. Err...