Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: RE: Continuity
Message-ID: <307@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 16:05:25 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.307
Posted: Mon Apr 15 16:05:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Apr-85 03:02:58 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 53


My posting was inadvertantly cut in half. This is a complete copy.

> 	The continuous model of the universe is the most relevent 
> one. Physics are unable to resolve any sort of bottom most 
> primitive particle. For all intents and purposes, the continuous 
> model of the universe is the most accurate.

Learn some physics sometime. Physicsts have indeed found several such
particles. For example no one has ever found any internal structure in
an electron.

>	If you are implying that there is an essentially random 
> element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself 
> refuted.
>
>	" I find it very difficult to believe that God plays
> dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted )

Einstein did find it very difficult to believe, but he never refuted
it. In fact some of his own work (on the photo-electric effect) gave direct
support to the theory that he opposed. Einstien was one of the last of
the old groop of pysicists who never accepted Quantum Mechanics even as
massive amounts of evidence for it appeared.

> It is generally agreed that the uncertainties encountered in 
> experimentation are due to observational difficulties. This was 
> the point I wished to emphasize.

This is also a point in which you are incorrect. The theory you refer to
is the "hidden variable" theory. It states that the outcome of an
experiment is really determined by "hidden variables" that we are
unable to observe.

Of course such a theory cannot be entirely ruled out, but simple versions of
it can be. For instance one might like a theory in which only local
information about the universe is used and in which information never
travels faster than the speed of light. Very clever experiments (the
details of which I forget at the moment) have ruled out such "local
hidden variable theorys.

Much simpler theorys result if it is assumed that things that cannot
possibly be observed (e.g. both position and momentum) cannot be
observed because the concepts have no real basis.

I agree that philosophy should take pysics into account but it should
be modern pysics not 19th century stuff.

If no one else does I will post some thoughts about the philosophical
implications of QM as soon as I have thought them through.

				Ralph
				rlh@cvl