Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Gregory L. Hansen ,
You say :
" That new discoveries about climate and meteorology
are still being published is enough proof that
we don't know everything about the weather .
But besides that is the limited amount of data that
can be gathered and plugged into the models . "


And of course ,
You think the same is true of the quantum world ... Right ?

Because if nature were intrinsically random
Then let's all pack our bags and go home ...
There's nothing more to learn .

Whatever nature is "really" doing, it's my opinion that we can't
decipher it. So anything we say about nature must be filtered through
theories and models of her. Even if we had a theory that coincided in
every way with the things we observe, we can't say nature "really"
works by mechanisms described in that theory, we can only say we have
a theory that so far seems to coincide in every way with the things we
observe.

But nature does coincide in every way that we've observed with quantum
mechanics, which is intrinsically random. It coincides with theory in
a way that makes any of the usual ideas of hidden information invalid.
Intrinsic randomness is a best guess. If you think there's something
deterministic behind apparant randomness, that's really more an
article of faith than something that can be supported with data.
After all, radioactive decays or polarization experiments aren't the
weather.

Hi Greg ,
You say :
" If you think there's something deterministic
behind apparent randomness ,
that's really more an article of faith
than something that can be supported with data .
After all ,
radioactive decays or polarization experiments
aren't the weather . "


No , The difference isn't that great .

Just like we'll never achieve flawless weather forecasts ,
Our observations of " Particles " will always be flawed .

Like most people , I fully realize that it's impossible
to achieve absolute _ Scientific _ determinism .

Our " Laws of Physics " will always be incomplete
because of Gödel's incompleteness theorem ,
and because nature's complexity is infinite .

The only point I'm trying to make is that
it must be ignorance that makes nature seem random .

If it wasn't ignorance ,
And if nature was somehow intrinsically random ( How ? ) ,
Then it'd be futile to study these particles .