Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
From: williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Interest.
Message-ID: <2292@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 17:35:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.2292
Posted: Tue May 21 17:35:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 20:48:32 EDT
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 51



       An explanation of the possibility of continuous QM

     What I have been driving towards for quite a while has  been
the concept that QM and a continuous universe may not be mutually
exclusive.  Much debate has ensued over " freewill ", and how  QM
basically  would assure a random element to the universe, but, QM
may not be as random as we interpret it.

     The uncertainty  principle  states  that  you  may  know  an
object's  position,  or  momentum, but not both at the same time.
In the previous articles I have tried to explain a mechanism that
would manifest itself in reality as an oscillation between matter
and energy relative to an inertial frame.

     This would mean that a particle would go through  phases  of
matter and energy in movement relative to any inertial frame, and
that it would for periods  appear  to  stand  still,  convert  to
energy,  and  then  reappear  as  matter  at some other displaced
location.

     It was hoped that the reader would interpret all of this  as
to  mean  that  probability and randomness are the mathematics of
perception, and not necessarily that of reality.   The  important
distinction  is  that we are attempting to describe behavior, and
not necessarily to define it.

     The simplicity of the continuous function is alluring.   The
possibility  that  we  exist within a continuous function implies
several things:

     1.  That such a function exists.

     2.  There is one decision mechanism.

     3.  That reality is probable.

     4.  That causality and randomness are analytical devices.

     5.  There is no divine intervention.

     In short, how  *DOES*  it  feel  to  live  in  a  continuous
function?  Our destiny may be set, but it is still unknown.

     BTW, the only  way  to  analyze  segments  of  a  continuous
function that has features throughout scale is with probability.

                                        John Williams

          < It's a fair cop, but society is to blame >