Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Scientification)
Message-ID: <556@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 07:26:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.556
Posted: Tue Oct  1 07:26:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:44:44 EDT
References: <253@yetti.UUCP> <1727@pyuxd.UUCP> <690@mmintl.UUCP> <759@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 49

> .. 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 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"?

    Secondly, the so-called "Quantum theory of Measurement" does not imply
    that all indeterminacy is caused merely by inaccuracy in measurement
    techniques. Given the bizarre multiplicity of interpretations, I believe
    the reason for this appellation was its stunning success at prediction
    of empirical results regardless of the scientific community's inability
    to agree on the reality (if any) beyond those measurements -- the
    Copenhagen dogma arguably carries as little metaphysical baggage as
    possible.  Note too, that quantum indeterminacy explains why atoms do
    not collapse, or why vacuums always contain random electromagnetic
    energy, even when we are not performing micro-level experiments. Until
    QM, such phenomena were most paradoxical.

    As to disproof of classical determinism, I refer you to any discussion
    of Bell's interconnectedness principle, which has recently been verified
    across macroscopic distances. You may not believe my past articles
    (which no doubt reflect my biased ignorance), but old and new arguments
    from Bohr, Einstein, Von Neumann, Bohm, Bell and recent empirical
    results demonstrate the impossibility of underlaying quantum randomness
    with any traditional deterministic `reality'.

    The system CANNOT be viewed in any traditional deterministic way, and
    this HAS been ascertained as factually as any scientific statement
    I can think of. Traditional determinism has been forceably demoted
    from universal scientific principle to a limited methodology.

        "The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an
	 engine idling, not when it is doing work" - Wittgenstein

-michael