https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3195/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3996268urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.3195:3996268Sat, 19 May 2012 16:17:23 GMT<p>The authors of this article write in their abstract: &quot;Are there fundamentally random processes in nature? Theoretical predictions, confirmed experimentally, such as the violation of Bell inequalities, point to an affirmative answer. However, these results are based on the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely at random, ...&quot; [1] From its inception, quantum mechanics has used the language of probability to make calculations (this is the &quot;Born rule&quot; that another poster refers to), but this does not mean that the universe behaves randomly. Perhaps, as you suggest, this…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3195/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-phhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3996165urn:hackerpapers:mention:1105.3195:3996165Sat, 19 May 2012 15:39:25 GMT<p>Arxiv abstract page http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3195 Link to ArXiv Paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.3195v2.pdf I wish they would link to the ArXiv instead of Nature but then again Nature probably promoted this in sciencedaily...</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1105.3195/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-ph