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.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Now wait a minute... (was Re: Who can know?)
Message-ID: <607@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 18:16:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.607
Posted: Mon Sep 29 18:16:12 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 21:43:48 EDT
References: <7666@tekecs.UUCP>
Lines: 49
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:311 talk.origins:115

> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers)
> I don't *think* I read Wayne wrong.  He seems pretty clear in the quoted
> segment above, where he says that various pieces of information [about
> quantum mechanical systems, I believe] are Unknowable (capital "U") since
> they cannot be apprehended by us or anyone else.  Okay so far?  In his
> view (Wayne, where are you?  I'm insecure when speaking for others),
> there are some aspects of these systems about which information is not
> merely beyond our sensory and instrument capacity, it simply is not 
> there at all.

Hmmmmmm.  Perhaps I was more unclear that I thought.  I posted a rather
flip comparison to my grandmother having wheels (which Michael
apparently hasn't seen yet... hope it didn't offend), which I would like
to expand upon here.

First, I am *not* saying that data "hidden" by uncertainty is
Unknowable because it is unknown.  Not at all.  I'm saying that it is
a mischaracterization of the notion of uncertainty to claim that it is
an observer-related phenomenon at all.  The portions of the theory that
derive the uncertainty relationships *don't* *mention* *observers* *at*
*all*.  They state that *really* and *truely*, the data isn't there.

Now, if you wish to say that "the theory might be wrong", OK, fine, I'm
easy.  But my "theory" that my grandmother doesn't have wheels might be
wrong also.  Nevertheless, if somebody said that "You can't rule out
some observer being able to see the tread pattern on your grandmother's
wheels.", I'd feel justified in replying "But my grandmother doesn't
even *HAVE* wheels!"  Similarly with data "hidden" by uncertainty.
There *may* be data there.  And my grandmother *might* have intangible
wheels.

I hope my thoughts are clearer.  I'm *not* saying that current theories
cannot be wrong.  I'm saying that current theories imply that no
observer can "see" the "hidden" data, not because of some lack in
observers, but because the data just isn't there.  The original posting
(by Stuart Gathman, if I'm not mistaken) focused on the observer, saying
that all observers may not be limited as QM says we are.  My objection
is that QM *DOESN'T* *SAY* that we are limited!  This is a common
misconception that I tried to clear up, not too well it seems in
retrospect.  Sigh.

--
My math requires, when meson's pair,
A particle that isn't there.
It isn't there again today.
Please, Fermi, make it go away!
                                --- Karen Anderson
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw