williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (04/12/85)
Excuse, please. The continuous model of the universe is the most relevent one. Physics are unable to resolve any sort of bottom most primitive particle. For all intents and purposes, the continuous model of the universe is the most accurate. If you are implying that there is an essentially random element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself refuted. " I find it very difficult to believe that God plays dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted ) I do not consider it unreasonable to maintain some kind of consistency between physical theories and philosophical ones. It is generally agreed that the uncertainties encountered in experimentation are due to observational difficulties. This was the point I wished to emphasize. We really are having trouble trying to find a limit to scale. A continuous function has no limit. This is what you might call a Strong Possibility. John.
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/14/85)
Continuity is useful in thinking about *freedom*, but not about *free will*. Remember the proposed analogy between free will and language ability? Granted that there is a continuum between how people use language - I think that the *ability* to use language is more or less binary (forgetting, for a moment, hard cases like Koko the Gorilla). Humans have the ability and trees don't. Even if it were possible to construct a freedom continuum between rocks (say) at one end and man at the other -- would it help? What is being investigated is whether man has the ability of free will. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (04/15/85)
> The continuous model of the universe is the most relevent > one. Physics are unable to resolve any sort of bottom most > primitive particle. For all intents and purposes, the continuous > model of the universe is the most accurate. Learn some physics sometime. Physicsts have indeed found several such particles. For example no one has ever found any internal structure in an electron. > If you are implying that there is an essentially random > element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself > refuted. > > " I find it very difficult to believe that God plays > dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted ) Einstein did find it very difficult to believe, but he never refuted it. In fact some of his own work (on the photo-electric effect) gave direct support to the theory that he opposed. Einstien was one of the last of the old groop of pysicists who never accepted Quantum Mechanics even as massive amounts of evidence for it appeared. > It is generally agreed that the uncertainties encountered in > experimentation are due to observational difficulties. This was > the point I wished to emphasize.
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (04/15/85)
My posting was inadvertantly cut in half. This is a complete copy. > The continuous model of the universe is the most relevent > one. Physics are unable to resolve any sort of bottom most > primitive particle. For all intents and purposes, the continuous > model of the universe is the most accurate. Learn some physics sometime. Physicsts have indeed found several such particles. For example no one has ever found any internal structure in an electron. > If you are implying that there is an essentially random > element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself > refuted. > > " I find it very difficult to believe that God plays > dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted ) Einstein did find it very difficult to believe, but he never refuted it. In fact some of his own work (on the photo-electric effect) gave direct support to the theory that he opposed. Einstien was one of the last of the old groop of pysicists who never accepted Quantum Mechanics even as massive amounts of evidence for it appeared. > It is generally agreed that the uncertainties encountered in > experimentation are due to observational difficulties. This was > the point I wished to emphasize. This is also a point in which you are incorrect. The theory you refer to is the "hidden variable" theory. It states that the outcome of an experiment is really determined by "hidden variables" that we are unable to observe. Of course such a theory cannot be entirely ruled out, but simple versions of it can be. For instance one might like a theory in which only local information about the universe is used and in which information never travels faster than the speed of light. Very clever experiments (the details of which I forget at the moment) have ruled out such "local hidden variable theorys. Much simpler theorys result if it is assumed that things that cannot possibly be observed (e.g. both position and momentum) cannot be observed because the concepts have no real basis. I agree that philosophy should take pysics into account but it should be modern pysics not 19th century stuff. If no one else does I will post some thoughts about the philosophical implications of QM as soon as I have thought them through. Ralph rlh@cvl
jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (04/17/85)
John Williams writes: > If you are implying that there is an essentially random >element to the universe, that is a model that Einstein himself >refuted. > > " I find it very difficult to believe that God plays >dice " - Einstein ( loosely quoted ) > Einstein didn't refute the random element - he only denied it. Stephen Hawking, a brilliant modern theoretical physicist, replies: "Not only does God play dice with the universe, but he sometimes throws the dice where we can't see them." That doesn't prove the other side either, but demonstrates that there is another opinion. -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa