Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Does the moon exist?
Message-ID: <2200@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 29-Mar-86 17:39:45 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2200
Posted: Sat Mar 29 17:39:45 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 07:25:43 EST
References: <12628@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1483@mhuxt.UUCP> <761@hounx.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 18

In article <761@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>I prefer the model where the wave equation merely ecodes our
>state of knowledge (or lack thereof) of the system under
>observation.  The act of observing then supplies another
>clue which may be sufficient to resolve some element of
>uncertainty about the state of the system.  That quantum
>increment in information is reflected in the collapse of
>the wave function--the disappearance of our ignorance.

I think Barry's view is essentially correct.  The fundamental
problem is that the axioms of quantum theory appear to be
incompatible with those of conventional information theory.
This can be seen in its sharpest form in the "two-slit"
experiment.  If anyone can really EXPLAIN complex probability
amplitudes in terms of more fundamental notions, I would like
to hear it.  I will grant in advance that they do seem to
work; but why?  (Equivalently, what is wrong with ordinary
conditional probability theory?)