cookie, nothing either of us says when we are "debating" in this thread is hardly relevant.

Monte, it indeterminable if there is randomness in physics. However i will accept that the current mathematical models that we use to represent the laws of physics, as we know them, allow for randomness. I know that's kinda picky but i would like to keep a shred of dignity.

cookie again, HBP does not in any way suggest randomness. It is merely putting a constraint on measurement. according to HBP you could theoretically determine a particles position or momentum to any degree of certainty except for exact but this is getting into an limit(x/x-h) discussion if we continue. therefore HBP does allow for exactness.

also im really kinda argumentative right now just for the sake of keeping from thinking about rl.

The fan is caked with shit

>according to HBP you could theoretically determine a particles position or momentum to any degree of certainty


thats correct if you insert NOT between could and theoretically

and replace could by can

Shev one can determine a particles momentum with a standard deviation of h so long as my deviation of that particles position is infinite, or one can determine the particles position with an infinite deviation of the momentum.

h being an infintesimaly small number.

Sorry i misread your statement (took the or for an and). you were right there. if delta p is infinite delta x can be any positive number to satisfy the unequation of Heisenberg and vice versa.

btw, the whole point of quantum physics is that h is not infinitesimally small.

quantum chemistry goddammit, but yeah. its not planck's consta... ahh fuck it, just put 0.

shit i never realized that dete = bismuth. genius. and makes sense.

biteme, remind me... did anyone say that it was possible to freely choose to believe in God, but not possible to freely choose not to believe in God? (sorry for the doubt negative)

pretty sure bismuth is chase

yeah, I always thought Biz was Chase too.....anything else would be a surprise