Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!erhoogerbeet
From: erhoogerbeet@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in life
Message-ID: <13261@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-May-87 17:43:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.13261
Posted: Fri May 22 17:43:14 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 01:37:09 EDT
References: <6762@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: erhoogerbeet@watmath.UUCP (Edwin (Deepthot))
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51
Keywords: Heisenberg certain
Summary: What I think.

In article <6762@mimsy.UUCP> pjn@brillig.UUCP (P. J. Narayanan) writes:
>I have this opinion about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 
>
>The principle says that (in one of its forms),
>
>		DELTA-p * DELTA-x  >=  h-bar / 2.
>I have complaints about the popular interpretation of this that you cannot 
>know for certain the position and momentum of any body. This, while true,
>doesnot, in my opinion, imbibe all the deep meanings of the principle. Since
>the Right Hand Side is a number greater than 0, this equation suggests that
>you cannot measure the position (or momentum) of any body without any
>uncertainty in it. That is, DELTA-p or DELTA-x can never be *EQUAL* to 0.
>
>This suggests that you cannot know anything, repeat *ANYTHING*, for certain
>in this world. It seems to me that this inference is too strong a one
>philosophically, but really unavoidable from the equation. It also makes one 
>think sbout the various notions men have about knowing things for certain
>and the practice of taking oath and testifying in a court of law etc.
[some deleted]

Though I am certainly no philosopher, I seem to remember this (heard from 
someone about Descartes' ramblings).

Let us assume that there is nothing that can be known for certain. Then,
a contradiction is reached because we have taken as certain the hypothesis
that nothing can be known for certain. Therefore, it must be so that you can
know something for certain.

The actual argument continues and finally ends up in the famous
"cogito ergo sum." - I think therefore I am.

I don't know what this means in relation to Heisenberg's principle, but I
think we can know *SOMETHING*. Also, I think Heisenberg's principle relates
to subatomic particles only. Of course, you seem to be implying that since
matter (ie you and me) is composed of subatomic particles, there is a small
probability that matter will not neccessarily be where it is supposed to be
and therefore not react as it should.

As for testimony: human memory is imperfect enough that even the most 
objective of people have biological, cultural and psychological biases.

I wonder what a real (as opposed to supposed, arm-chair or imaginary)
philosopher would think.

Just thought I'd get my piece in.

------ ---------               ------------------------------------------
erhoogerbeet@watmath.uucp    "`The Guide says there is an art to flying,'   
ehoogerbeets@wateuler.uucp     said Ford,`or at least a knack. The knack lies
Edwin (Deepthot)               in learning how to throw yourself at the ground
Hoogerbeets                    and miss.' He smiled weakly."