Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification)
Message-ID: <1836@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Oct-85 12:13:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1836
Posted: Wed Oct  2 12:13:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 07:01:55 EDT
References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> <690@mmintl.UUCP> <759@utastro.UUCP> <556@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 30

>>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 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. - Padraig

>     There are many interpretations of just what QM represents.  However, if
>     QM is philosophically unsatisfactory if it describes what we will
>     see when we look, rather than "what is there when we don't", is it not a
>     virtue that sentences expressing unobservable states are incapable of
>     formulation? Must science be bothered with the potential metaphysical
>     truth of questions like "Did George Washington sneeze on August 13,
>     1773?". Would not Occam have approved of a theory that insists that
>     "States which are not accessible do not exist"?

This is a very different kettle of fish from assuming the existence of
particular states and assuming their particular effects so as to "get" you
to your conclusion.  Yes, Occam would be spinning if you suggested that
that falls in line with the Razor.  Furthermore, when you ask about
whether you or George Washington or Genghis Khan sneezed on a certain date,
you are suggesting the possibility of an extremely probable known quantity:
human beings do sneeze.  To assert that that is roughly equivalent to saying
that speculations about phenomena that you have no basis for drafting a
model of (solely because you have a particular conclusion in mind and build
your axioms and models from there) doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
It sounds mighty presumptive, which is why Occam would have discarded it.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr