Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU!obnoxio
From: obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in life
Message-ID: <8705250606.AA27857@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 25-May-87 02:06:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: brahms.8705250606.AA27857
Posted: Mon May 25 02:06:39 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 26-May-87 00:43:55 EDT
References: <6762@mimsy.UUCP> <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 48

In article <3977@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU>, ma188saa@sdcc3 (Steve Bloch) writes:
>In article <6762@mimsy.UUCP> pjn@brillig.UUCP (P. J. Narayanan) writes:
>> [Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, sorta]

Most comments about P J Narayanan's reasoning have restricted themselves
to the stance that momentum and position are not all there is in the world.
I tend to agree, and found no way of reading his statement but as extreme
positivism.  (Or possibly an attempt to stir up trouble.)

But there's a more fundamental objection, even within such a strong and
uncompromising philosophical outlook:

Namely, one has no "right" to attach "certain" position/momentum to a
particle in the first place.  We do so only out of habit from the every-
day macroscopic world.

We all recognize instantly that it's nonsense to talk about, say, the
marital status of electrons.  What has to be (un)learned is that it is
also nonsensical to talk about *the* momentum, etc, of electrons, ex-
cept according to the rules of QM.  They no longer become simple num-
bers, attached to particles like so many pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey
games, but are--and this is speaking loosely--probabilistic mixes of
values.  These mixtures are all that can be said, and there are no
fundamental limitations on knowing just what these mixtures are.

(The above is, of course, how things go within standard interpretations
of QM.  If someone doesn't want to believe in QM or Copenhagen, etc,
fine.  That's a different question; I'm just summarizing the party line.)

>I just thought of something: a consistent logician cannot believe
>in its own consistency IF IT HAS READ GOEDEL.  [...]
>					   I suspect any procedure
>capable of RECOGNIZING Goedelese reasoning would necessarily believe
>it, and therefore not consistently believe in its own consistency.

Maybe, maybe not.  Goedel's proof is highly constructive, but that
never stopped anyone.  A logician I know once received a letter from
an ultra-ultra fanatical constructivist, who rejected Goedel's theor-
em for not being constructive enough.  Moreover, having detected this
fatal flaw, the letter writer claimed that he had gone on and had a
(very constructive) proof of the consistency of Peano Arithmetic.
The mind boggles.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	   Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make
empty prophecies.  The danger already exists that the mathematicians have
made a covenant with the Devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in
the bonds of Hell ...		-Saint Augustine