Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.religion,talk.origins
Subject: Who can know?
Message-ID: <579@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Sep-86 11:44:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.579
Posted: Mon Sep 15 11:44:36 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 02:38:27 EDT
References: <15222@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <988@hoptoad.uucp> <8443@duke.duke.UUCP> <1036@g.cs.cmu.edu> <198@BMS-AT.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Xref: linus talk.religion:103 talk.origins:40
Summary: *Nobody* can know.

> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman)
>> kck@g.cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)

>> "randomness". There are simply fundamental limitations on the knowledge
>> one can have of the state of a quantum mechanical system.
>
> The knowledge *we* can have is certainly limited.  Unless you assume
> that only beings with our physical limitations are observing, this
> does not mean there are no observers.

You mistake what recent expirements have shown.  They have shown that,
not only can *we* never know, but *noone* can ever know, because the
information *ISN'T* *THERE* *TO* *BE* *KNOWN*.

--
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
                                --- Alan J. Perlis
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw