Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 3/23/84; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!dir
From: dir@cbosgd.UUCP (Dean Radin)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: infinite regressions
Message-ID: <1382@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-May-84 17:07:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.1382
Posted: Wed May 23 17:07:09 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 11:50:23 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 20

I'm writing a paper that is tangentially concerned with 
the difficulty of replicating psychological experiments.
Most experiments involving human behavior are extremely
difficult to replicate, even under "exactly" the same conditions.
It is not unusual for an experimenter to get completely
opposite results in two apparently identical experiments.
This is probably due to all the uncontrolled and hidden unknowns 
in these so-called exact replications.

With this in mind, I wonder whether humans experimenting on humans 
experimenting on humans ... can be considered an infinite regression of sorts.
And if so, how might this relate to quantum mechanical measurement
and the uncertainty principle?

For instance, is it possible in principle for humans to observe 
one another with such a depth of understanding that even the subtlest
behavior can be predicted 100%?  How does the uncertainly principle 
apply to this question?  Who has written on this topic?

Dean Radin   AT&T Bell Labs  cbosgd!dir