Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification) Message-ID: <556@spar.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 07:26:12 EDT Article-I.D.: spar.556 Posted: Tue Oct 1 07:26:12 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:44:44 EDT References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> <690@mmintl.UUCP> <759@utastro.UUCP> Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 49 > .. if you really believe in determinism, you are being every >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly >> accepted by those in the field. >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. - Padraig There are many interpretations of just what QM represents. However, if QM is philosophically unsatisfactory if it describes what we will see when we look, rather than "what is there when we don't", is it not a virtue that sentences expressing unobservable states are incapable of formulation? Must science be bothered with the potential metaphysical truth of questions like "Did George Washington sneeze on August 13, 1773?". Would not Occam have approved of a theory that insists that "States which are not accessible do not exist"? Secondly, the so-called "Quantum theory of Measurement" does not imply that all indeterminacy is caused merely by inaccuracy in measurement techniques. Given the bizarre multiplicity of interpretations, I believe the reason for this appellation was its stunning success at prediction of empirical results regardless of the scientific community's inability to agree on the reality (if any) beyond those measurements -- the Copenhagen dogma arguably carries as little metaphysical baggage as possible. Note too, that quantum indeterminacy explains why atoms do not collapse, or why vacuums always contain random electromagnetic energy, even when we are not performing micro-level experiments. Until QM, such phenomena were most paradoxical. As to disproof of classical determinism, I refer you to any discussion of Bell's interconnectedness principle, which has recently been verified across macroscopic distances. You may not believe my past articles (which no doubt reflect my biased ignorance), but old and new arguments from Bohr, Einstein, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell and recent empirical results demonstrate the impossibility of underlaying quantum randomness with any traditional deterministic `reality'. The system CANNOT be viewed in any traditional deterministic way, and this HAS been ascertained as factually as any scientific statement I can think of. Traditional determinism has been forceably demoted from universal scientific principle to a limited methodology. "The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine idling, not when it is doing work" - Wittgenstein -michael Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com