Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification) Message-ID: <1177@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 12:55:50 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1177 Posted: Thu Oct 3 12:55:50 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 05:05:10 EDT References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> <690@mmintl.UUCP> <759@utastro.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 43 >> ... The evidence for >> quantum uncertainty is stronger than just "we can determine no cause". >> This is not the place and I don't have the time to go into it (there was >> a Scientific American article dealing with some of the issues a couple of >> years back). But if you really believe in determinism, you are being every >> bit as unscientific as the creationists -- the theory is overwhelmingly >> accepted by those in the field. > >Quantum mechanics is a theory of measurement. As far as I know it only says >that there are limitations on the precision to which events can be measured, >i.e. there is an uncertainty associated with certain types of measurement. This is not my understanding (important disclaimer: I am not a physicist). Bell's Inequality provides at least one example of an experimentally verifiable prediction that distinguishes between the simple inability to obtain an exact measurement, and one where there is no exactness to measure. IN SEARCH OF SCHROEDINGER'S CAT (author forgotten, damn it!) has an excellent discussion of Bell's Inequality, comprehensible to us laymen. Highly recommended. >This is not the same as saying that indeterminism is correct, only that >we can not measure a system and conclude that it is deterministic. The >system may be, but we cannot in practice ascertain that fact. This is the basis of the so-called "hidden variable" theories. At least one experiment has been done (Alain Aspect, 1982) that attempts to decide between these theories and theories allowing real indeterminacy, by looking for Bell's Inequality. The results indicated real indeterminacy. While I certainly don't consider hidden variable theories "unscientific" on the basis of a single experiment, I would say that the weight of present evidence is currently against them. Similarly, I find nothing necessarily unscientific about hard determinism, but I do think that arguing for that position on the basis of physics is choosing the wrong weapons. As I've said before, I don't think quantum indeterminacy makes much of an argument for free will all by itself, but it does have some relevance when arguing with advocates of a strict classical determinism. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry