Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.physics
Subject: Re: Does the moon exist?
Message-ID: <555@umich.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 30-Mar-86 20:36:58 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.555
Posted: Sun Mar 30 20:36:58 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 06:47:49 EST
References: <12628@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <539@umich.UUCP> <12714@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <547@umich.UUCP> <12765@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4803 net.physics:4016
Summary: reject hypotheses before testing them?

In article <12765@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Matthew P. Wiener writes:
>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.

But they can only be treated as scrap paper AFTER testing them on the points
at which they disagree with orthodox QM.  THAT'S MY POINT.

>I recall you had trouble understanding many-worlds a few months back. 

I had trouble buying some of the claims that Ken Rimey made for many-worlds.
And I was right:  some of them turned out to be exaggerated.  For example,
many-worlds turned out to be not so different after all from the
common "misinterpretation" of it.

>So perhaps you can explain what is going on that you find so mystifying?

The same things Einstein found troubling.

>Orthodox quantum mechanics has been one of the most astonishingly accurate 
>of all scientific theories ever proposed.  So bye bye objective reality.

I think your farewell to objective reality may be a bit premature.  First,
"variants" must be tested and proven false.  And Maxwell claims that his
hypothesis agrees with orthodox QM over a wide range of conditions, and thus
can reproduce that "astonishingly accurate" record.  Second, not all philosphers
agree that QM is incompatible with objective reality.  I'll dig up references
on the second point.  (I haven't seen their arguments, so I'm suspending
judgement.)  Meanwhile, you might want to look at the article by Bernard
d'Espagnat in the Nov 1979 _Scientific American_.  He is a physicist who
is not ready to say "bye bye" to objective reality.

--Paul Torek							torek@umich

P.S.  Sorry about my "shit for brains" remark.  It was uncalled for.  I still
vehemently object to dismissing unothodox variants before they are tested.