home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31 / NN_1992_31.iso / spool / sci / math / 17282 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-12-22  |  1.1 KB
  1. Xref: sparky sci.math:17282 sci.physics:21554
  2. Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!chnews!sedona!bhoughto
  3. From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
  4. Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics
  5. Subject: Re: Bayes' theorem and QM
  6. Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:26:57 GMT
  7. Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
  8. Lines: 15
  9. Message-ID: <1h5nchINNm2j@chnews.intel.com>
  10. References: <1992Dec18.134107.24536@oracorp.com>
  11. NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com
  12.  
  13. In article <1992Dec18.134107.24536@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
  14. >The second statement is unwarranted, in my opinion. Bell's Theorem
  15. >shows that there is no deterministic completion of QM that uses
  16. >classical probability theory. However, Bell's Theorem does *not* say
  17. >that there are no deterministic completions of quantum mechanics, if
  18. >one is willing to give up classical probability theory.
  19.  
  20. How would a "non-classical probability theory" look?  What is
  21. the limitation of "classical probability theory," and just
  22. what is a "classical probability theory?"
  23.  
  24.                 --Blair
  25.                   "I'll have a scoop of Double
  26.                    Fudge Underdog and a scoop
  27.                    of Pine Nut Passion..."
  28.