swansont

But you can have a similar situation with free will. If you disbelieve it, you are rewarded with a clear conscience, even if it exists. One might make the same observation about not believing in free will.

They would have some explaining to do

As someone who worked on an atom interferometer (in grad school), I’m in that minority.

No. Pascal’s wager is about asymmetric outcomes from a choice to believe in something, or not. In the case of free will, you must also account for the fact that society acts like it exists. “free will exists and controls everything you do” seems to be contradictory.

Fair enough - missiles would be launched from Cuba, rather than Cuba launching missiles. It’s moot, though; Kennedy announced that any missiles launched from Cuba would be considered an attack by the Soviets.

And different speeds (since this is for massive particles), so the two elements of it will separate, which is not what we observe happening.

“If dark energy is constant, the universe will continue to expand, forever getting colder and emptier. If it’s growing in strength, the universe will expand so speedily that it’ll destroy itself in what astronomers call the Big Rip.” If they’ve considered it might grow in strength, the notion that it was assumed to be constant is overstated.

But an invasion was rejected for the fear that the Cubans would launch missiles. And that’s the scenario being offered - that they launched missiles.

Matter-wave interference confirms the deBroglie equation.

President Kennedy doesn’t agree “The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. … This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all Americas“ http://wp.stu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Kennedy-Speech-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.pdf The Soviets agreed to remove the missiles. Can’t remove something that isn’t there. Recon photos showing the missiles and also them being loaded onto ships for removal in November https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm November 5, 1962: Low-level photography documents loading of Soviet missiles at the main Mariel port facility for return to the USSR. On the dock are vehicles later identified by NPIC as nuclear warhead vans.

Do you understand what an analogy is?

“if Cuba launched Russian missiles” Launched is past tense. There was only one Cuban missile crisis. It happened in 1962. People screw up grammar all the time. It usually doesn’t cause such issues. Cuban missile crisis. Right there in the title.

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

It depends on whether you could take out the launch sites with conventional weapons. And also on how many missiles had been launched. But they did when the crisis happened.

Or, you know, you could just make an effort to explain what you mean, so people don’t have to read between the lines. And not put the blame on others when they don’t get what you mean No, but that’s not the point. It’s analogous to Pascal’s wager, with free will taking the place of the existence of a supreme being