Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dlogics!dsa From: dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Artificial vs. ''real'' intelligence Summary: You cannot say this either Message-ID: <599@dlogics.COM> Date: 9 Jul 90 22:52:41 GMT References: <1990Jul2.182411.4441@king.mcs.drexel.edu> <5734@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <5767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago Lines: 41 In article <5767@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes: > In article <598@dlogics.COM> dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) writes: > >In article <5734@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes: > > >> One thing for sure is that QM functions, being physical functions, > >> can be determined by physical devices. > > >No they cannot. Please stop saying this. It is incorrect as has been pointed > >out here many times. > > I think we have a misunderstanding here. When I say "determined", I > mean measured. Sorry, you can't measure them either. That is, you can measure a particle's physical position (with, say your Geiger counter) but then you don't know[ where it is going or where it has been. Or you can measure its momentum but then you don't know where it is. > For example, an electron passing through a diffraction > grating has a probability field of where it will end up hitting > a target. There is no evidence that any a priori method can discover > where exactly it will hit. The electron collision location can be > located by physical devices after the collision. What if you send it through two slits? Then it actually was in two points "at once!" And it will interfere with itself. You cannot measure where it is at all. If you do, it will change your experiment. It will no longer interfere with itself. It no longer went through both slits. QM is difficult, I'll grant you but just try to think of these "particles" as things that do not behave as what we intuitively understand as particles behaving (always, anyway). Also, there is no "probability field." There is a wave equation with which is associated an amplitude. You can use this to compute a probability density but this is not a field. -- David S. Angulo (312) 266-3134 Datalogics Internet: dsa@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!dsa Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473