ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/13/85)
7 GMT
Lines: 65
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 62
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 59
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 56
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 53
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 50
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Lines: 47
13 Oct 85 09:58:37 GMT
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 42
====
Correspondence forwarded to net.philosophy..
====
Excuse me for not posting this on net-philosophy, but I don't have a way
to do so. Feel free to post it with any reply you have, however.
I have been following with interest your postings and heartily agree
with what you have to say about QM. Most others in the discussion seem
to have never heard of Bell's inequality, the biggest obstacle facing
anyone who cares to maintain the sacred triumvirate of realism, locality,
and induction. Part of the problem stems from making too much over
Einstien's view of QM as nature playing dice and ignoring his view that
it entails that the moon is not there when nobody is looking. He was
correct on both counts, but wrong in using them to reject QM. However,
I am puzzled by your claim that you have shown the following results:
Nonlocality provides conclusive proof that the events are
not determined by temporally and spatially impinging causes.
QM supports the contention that empirical evidence implies
limits to scientific knowledge (should future advances
change this, I will gladly change my mind).
If we accept recent experiments as showing that determinism is false, then
how can we also accept them as showing that there are limits to
scientific knowledge? There is nothing else to know beyond what we can
measure, because there is nothing beyond what we can measure.
John
ARPA: mclean@nrl-css
UUCP: {decvax, umcp-cs}/nrl-css/mclean
====
I well doubt of my own being, as of the being of those things I actually
see and fell -- George Berkeley
-michael