Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.physics
Subject: Re: Does the moon exist?
Message-ID: <12765@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 03:26:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12765
Posted: Sat Mar 29 03:26:07 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Mar-86 02:48:47 EST
References: <12628@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <539@umich.UUCP> <12714@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <547@umich.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4759 net.physics:4004

In article <547@umich.UUCP> torek@zippy.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>In article <12714@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>>In article <539@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes:
>>>For a less mystifying view, see N. Maxwell, ``Are Probabilism and Special
>>>Relativity Incompatible?'', _Philosophy of Science_ 198[4?].  He suggests
>>>that wave-packet collapse occurs whenever the difference in rest-energy
>>>between the possible collapsed states exceeds a certain value.
>>
>>   What is mystifying is how people can believe stuff like this.  Sorry,
>>but this is the kind of artificial bullshit that people to whom physics
>>is too mystifying to understand cook up to make it "simpler."  The only
>>reason anyone would believe this is if they can't understand real QM.
>>   This reminds me of the morons who believe that "entropy" has some
>>magical significance and that the universe somehow keeps track of what
>>it is everywhere and makes sure that it never decreases.  You may laugh,
>>but I have seen it!
>>
>You really have shit for brains, don't you?  No doubt you haven't even
>read the article you are criticizing.

Why should he read it, Paul?  There are dozens of variants of quantum
mechanics published every year, and they turn out to be most useful as
scrap paper.

I was discussing the philosophy of orthodox quantum mechanics, and as YOUR
response is that there's something mystifying going on, I will conclude you
don't understand quantum mechanics, philosophy, and/or mysticism.  I recall
you had trouble understanding many-worlds a few months back.  I agree entirely
with David, and thought his response was quite restrained.

So perhaps you can explain what is going on that you find so mystifying?  My
point is that a nineteenth century philosophy died when confronted with a
twentieth century physics.  If you want to cling on to outdated philosophy,
that is your problem.  Just don't call orthodox quantum mechanics mystifying,
and don't propose cures merely to rescue your philosophy.  Orthodox quantum
mechanics has been one of the most astonishingly accurate of all scientific
theories ever proposed.  So bye bye objective reality.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720