Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Non-linear systems.
Message-ID: <7212@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 11-Jan-85 04:07:37 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7212
Posted: Fri Jan 11 04:07:37 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 07:54:28 EST
References: <209@talcott.UUCP>, <328@rlgvax.UUCP> <384@hou2g.UUCP> <273@harvard.ARPA> <214@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 19

> One way to look at QM uncertainty is to say that it, or something like
> it, is necessary merely to avoid having to say that each particle in
> the universe represents an infinite amount of information.

No, this is not what quantum uncertainty is about (although perhaps this
is a consequence of it).  Even quantum mechanics assumes that quantities
can be expressed as sets of real numbers, each of which is essentially
infinitely precise.  The uncertainty principle is that every measurable
quantity (well, that's stretching it a bit) has a conjugate quantity
such that the product of the precision to which the conjugate variables
can be simultaneously determined is no less than some universal constant
(something like 10^-27 erg-sec as I recall).  There is no injunction
against any quantity being measured to as many "bits" of accuracy as one
may desire, although its conjugate becomes fuzzier as the measurement is
made more precise.

I would like to hear a discussion of the implications of a closed and/or
bounded (not the same thing) universe on such issues.  I think there is
something very interesting to be discovered about this..