[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance"project.

[Terry Reedy]

"Ville Vainio" <ville at spammers.com> wrote in message
> But aren't they probabilities just because we haven't understood them?

That is the question.  To me, the underlying question is whether the 
existence of this universe (in particular, the big bang) was 
'deterministic' or 'arbitrary' in some megauniverse.

> A thing like "probability" just can't exist in the ultimate Reality.

That is your religious belief -- and perhaps Enstein's.  But I am not sure 
that God has any choice but to play dice.

> No lab equipment can prove the absence of further mechanisms
> directing the phenomena that have been observed and "proved" to be
> nondeterministic.

Given that no lab equipment can prove the absence of anything, this is a 
vacuous statement (irony intended ;-).

There is a mathematical theorem in quantum mechanics that claims, as I 
recall, that certain observable phenomena will be different depending upon 
whether there are or are not unobserved 'hidden variables' that would, if 
they were known, remove indetermancy.  About 20 years ago, observations 
were obtained which clearly agreed with the no hiddem variables option.

Of course, if the premises are wrong, then so are the conclusions.  But the 
burden is on QM premise doubters to produce an alternative that accords 
with data just as well as QM.

Terry J. Reedy