stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/10/86)
In article <1036@g.cs.cmu.edu>, kck@g.cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes: > "randomness". There are simply fundamental limitations on the knowledge > one can have of the state of a quantum mechanical system. ^^^ The knowledge *we* can have is certainly limited. Unless you assume that only beings with our physical limitations are observing, this does not mean there are no observers. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/15/86)
> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) >> kck@g.cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) >> "randomness". There are simply fundamental limitations on the knowledge >> one can have of the state of a quantum mechanical system. > > The knowledge *we* can have is certainly limited. Unless you assume > that only beings with our physical limitations are observing, this > does not mean there are no observers. You mistake what recent expirements have shown. They have shown that, not only can *we* never know, but *noone* can ever know, because the information *ISN'T* *THERE* *TO* *BE* *KNOWN*. -- The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman. --- Alan J. Perlis -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw