Strange

No one agrees with instantaneous communication. Why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example. Just code that up and then come back.

It is not very clear what you are asking. However, it is obviously not “blatant speculation”. It was a model derived from well established theory (general relativity). The model made various predictions. Observations were made that confirmed all those predictions. Therefore the model is, in general, accepted. That is how science works. Fair enough. I didn't realise you were referring to someone else's claims. My understanding is that the rules of the Speculation forum require you to have a model. If you want to ask questions you should not be doing it in the Speculations forum. That is speculation.

There is no doubt about entanglement. (And stop pretending that "spooky action at a distance" is not entanglement.)

Then you obviously did it wrong.

Environment. In the womb and later development. Even identical twins don't always look identical. No it isn't. That is a very exceptional case.

You have already demonstrated that you are not competent to make any such assessment. No it doesn't.

But, in general, it doesn't. Try simulating an experiment that actually tests Bell's theorem. For example, measuring 3 different polarizations on the same photon. No I didn't. Please stop lying.

I don't just claim it, I gave you a list of experiments that demonstrate it. If there is a disagreement between reality and your "simulation". I am going to go with reality. Sorry.

Because it is 100% precise and accurate. But here you go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments There is no such thing. That is what is so bizarre: you talk with great confidence about things you barely understand and things that don't even exist.

This has been explained multiple times as well: the problem is not the maths. YOU ARE NOT SIMULATING ANYTHING TO DO WITH BELL'S THEOREM. Your sim is not wrong; it is irrelevant.

Maybe angels are beings made of pure logic...

It has been explained soooo many times. You obviously don't want to learn and are happy in your little bubble. You have been provided with long lists of experments that test Bell's Theorem. Why do you ignore them?

That would appear to be contradicted by Godel's incompleteness theorem. Is something with holes in still perfect? (Depending, of course, what you mean by these terms.)

This isn't a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong. You might as well be claiming the sky is green. So, no. Based on no maths and little understanding? I can see that working really well.

Nonsense. There are many types of logic (for example, Wikipedia lists some of the main types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic). Does that even mean anything? In what sense is it pure? In what sense is it perfect? Nope. Ironically, that is an example of inductive reasoning (rather than deductive). If only. It is hard work wading through your overlong sentences, your repetition, your false logic and general waffle. I wonder if there is any point. It is not clear you have anything of value to say. When I asked about one specific example of ambiguity, you did not answer the question and, instead, responded with your usual irrelevant waffle. You are the one who consistently uses non-standard definitions for things. That about sums it up. Then why are there many people who do not believe in gods? And even if it is a fundamental part of the human psyche, that doesn't say anything about the existence of gods - espeically as people have believed in so many different deities over the years. I think you miss the point, you need observations to perform science, not logic. Logic can be done in the abstract with no connection to the real world. If that were true, then there would be no need for experimental science.

On the other hand, multiple posters have provided detailed explanations of what Bell's theorem really is and information about experiments that confirm Bell's theorem (all supported with copious links to reference material). You have a toy program which tests one case does not even appear to be relevant to Bell's theorem. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but you are labouring under the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.

I think his combination of rambling, incoherent posts and an insistence that everyone else "be scientific" and use "perfect logic" is quite amsuing. That is probably the only reason for engaging with him. Certainly he isn't going to change his mind (and why should he) and is clearly incapable of presenting an argument in a way that will persuade anyone else.

It depends on which definition of free will you are talking about. (And probably how you define "complete control".)

This is true. However, your vague ramblings, once again, do nothing to suggest how the wealth of evidence we currently have could magically be shown to be wrong. Unless you are resorting to that schoolboy philosophy of "maybe the world was created 10 minutes ago and only made to look 4 billion years old". The word you are looking for is "sound" not fact. That isn't what science is. And you have now added "straw man" to your collection of fallacies. Well done.

So your goid didn't create the universe? But there are plenty of ways around that argument (which is why people are considering them) apart from some mythical superbeing did it. For someone so fond of "perfect logic" you do like to repeat the same illogical nonsense. Well, it might be if there were any evidence for that eternal intelligence to start with.

A scientific argument does not have to "be without error". If that were so, then science would have nothing to do because we would know all there is to know. The whole point about science is that it is a series of approximations. 1. You were not "created" 2. Evolution does not require their to have been an infinite number of people before you. 3. "Logically impossible" is just an opinion, with no supporting evidence. There are several very good hypotheses, based on known physics, for how the universe could come from "nothing" (with various definitons of what that "nothing" is). So, again, this is an argument from incredulity/ignorance. Yes... hence the name. However, it is, as far as wee can tell, a fundamental aspect of the physical world. Are you suggesting that there are scientists who doubnt the HUP? (I'm not really sure what this sentence means, otherwise.) Er no. The behaviour of chaotic systems cannot be predicted (except to a very limited extent). This applies to double pendulums, the weather and even a game of billiards. It is not logical to conclude that, in the absence of any evidence supporting that view. It is equally possible that we will all be reconstituted as jars of peanut butter. Based on the level of evidence you present.

No, that is not what I am referring to. I'm not even sure why you would think that (apart from the fact you, yet again, appear almost toitally ignorant of the scientific method). I'm not sure how to categorise the fallacy of "well if it proves something false then that is proving the truth". Truthful appraisal of what? Your original sentence appear to be missing a referent. So only polytheism is false theism? Anyone who believes in a single god is OK? As a professional writer, I generally find that when people don't understand something, it is my fault rather than theirs. But each to his own.

As semantics refers to meaning, I don't see how language (or understanding) could work without semantics. As you are the one who appears unable to understand basic science, logic or the nature of evidence because of your religious bias, I think that advice applies more to you than most other members of this forum. So if, as some physicists speculate, the universe was created by a ranbdom quantum fluctuaation, then you are happy worshipping a false vacuum (better than a false idol, I suppose). Interesting that you failed to clarify the meaning of your ambiguous sentence... The fact you think it is preposterous would be an argument from incredulity (another logical fallacy, which I am sure you are aware of. So presumably you deny or don't understand evolution, then. No one was created and there is no reason to think someone was created an infinite time ago. And this appears to be the fallacy of begging the question: "the universe can't be infinitely old because that would mean an infinite amount of time has passed, which is an error". Why would that be an error? The philosophy of science is an integral part of science, without which science would not function at all. Still, what I said was not exclusive to philosophy by any stretch. Furthermore, science is inherently strict logic, and better logic creates better science as logic is the only accurate method of truthful discernment. As science is directly concerned with the truth, it is of unequivocal importance that science be in perfect accordance with it. If science deviates from the truth, then it is blasphemy, as far as science is concerned at the very least. To suggest to simply ignore what the truth is and what perfect logic can entail, from a strict scientific and logical standpoint, means to completely get rid of science in its entirety. Without perfect logic, which is required to understand the truth, science would say absolutely nothing at all. This is actually starting to become a philosophical conversation, as we're dealing with the general nature of science rather than deducing truth through strict logic and error-free understanding.

So still no evidence that the existence of Jesus (if, indeed, he existed) had an effect on the frequency of alleles in the human population? And if you think that referring to your opinions as "wacky" is defamation, then it is a good job you are not a scientist. I wonder if people have to walk on eggshells when doing code reviews with you ...

I'm not sure it helps. It rather implies that space becomes increasingly curved over time which is not (as far as I am aware) the case.