mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/19/86)
[...] >> 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*. > > Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw I'd really like to see a cogent defense of this last statement (I don't think it can be done). How can we say that certain information about quantum mechanical systems, for a given observer with perceptual abilities far different (better) than our own, is simply unknowable. It is very different to say that we do not or cannot observe something than to say that it cannot be observed, period. Remember not to restrict the perceptual system of the observer to a certain level of resolution or even by what we consider to be fundamental "laws" (e.g., that the observer must follow a linear time- stream and cannot observe two events at precisely the same instant). If you do not restrict the observer in ways similar to how we are restricted, then even quantum physical fundamentals such as the probabilistic motions of particles that gives rise to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle go away, as it would, in fact, be possible for an observer to apprehend both the position and the velocity of the particle at the same instant in time. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (09/21/86)
In article <7657@tekecs.UUCP> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: >>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* [Wayne Throop]. >I'd really like to see a cogent defense of this last statement (I don't think >it can be done). How can we say that certain information about quantum >mechanical systems, for a given observer with perceptual abilities far >different (better) than our own, is simply unknowable. Mike, it seems to me you did not read what Wayne said carefully enough. What he said was that (according to our current understanding) the infor- mation cannot be measured because it doesn't exist. Even God cannot "see" what path an electron takes if it doesn't in fact take a path, nor know simultaneously its position and momentum if these do not simultaneously exist. If you are asking "How do we *know* this picture of reality is the correct one?", then this is a general problem in epistemology and the philosophy of science with no more particular reference to this problem than to evolution (which I find you defending in the next article). ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/22/86)
> In article <7657@tekecs.UUCP> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) writes: > >>>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* [Wayne Throop]. > >>I'd really like to see a cogent defense of this last statement (I don't think >>it can be done). How can we say that certain information about quantum >>mechanical systems, for a given observer with perceptual abilities far >>different (better) than our own, is simply unknowable. > > Mike, it seems to me you did not read what Wayne said carefully enough. > What he said was that (according to our current understanding) the infor- > mation cannot be measured because it doesn't exist. Even God cannot "see" > what path an electron takes if it doesn't in fact take a path, nor know > simultaneously its position and momentum if these do not simultaneously > exist. If you are asking "How do we *know* this picture of reality is the > correct one?", then this is a general problem in epistemology and the > philosophy of science with no more particular reference to this problem > than to evolution (which I find you defending in the next article). > > ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 I don't *think* I read Wayne wrong. He seems pretty clear in the quoted segment above, where he says that various pieces of information [about quantum mechanical systems, I believe] are Unknowable (capital "U") since they cannot be apprehended by us or anyone else. Okay so far? In his view (Wayne, where are you? I'm insecure when speaking for others), there are some aspects of these systems about which information is not merely beyond our sensory and instrument capacity, it simply is not there at all. Now, I will agree that *IF* it were true that, for example, a particle's position and momentum were existentially mutally exclusive, then God nor anyone else could know them simultaneously. This (the IF part) is what I believe Wayne to be asserting. What I want to see is a defense of this assertion, since I maintain that such limitations are either based on our own instrument resolution or that we could not tell for sure if they were or not; basically, I don't think you can say if a currently unknowable thing is only unknowable to us or is simply and totally Unknowable to anyone anywhere with any abilities. No experimental data that I know of can say for sure if intra-nuclear uncertainty is part of the actual thing, part of the instrument's shortcomings, or part of the model that we use to describe it. These are all three separate conditions that, especially when talking about highly speculative and conceptualized systems such as quantum physics, are easily and often blurred. I wasn't meaning to take on all of epistemology either, Gene. We'll save that for another day :-). -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) (09/23/86)
In article <15733@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes: > mation cannot be measured because it doesn't exist. Even God cannot "see" > what path an electron takes if it doesn't in fact take a path, nor know > simultaneously its position and momentum if these do not simultaneously > exist. I (the originator of this argument) did not state that God could measure position and velocity simultaneously or describe its path. In fact, I rather agree with your position in this regard (but we still could be wrong). The point is that God can predict the outcome of a quantum experiment whereas we can't. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!{vrdxhq|dgis}!BMS-AT!stuart>
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/24/86)
> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) >> throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) >> [no observer] can ever know, because the >> information *ISN'T* *THERE* *TO* *BE* *KNOWN*. > If you > do not restrict the observer in ways similar to how we are restricted, then > even quantum physical fundamentals such as the probabilistic motions of > particles that gives rise to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle go away, > as it would, in fact, be possible for an observer to apprehend both the > position and the velocity of the particle at the same instant in time. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. Observations have shown particles *don't* *have* definite position and momentum simultaneously. And my observations show that my grandmother doesn't have wheels. If you wish to postulate that there *can* exist observers not limited by quantum uncertainty, fine. And I can postulate that my grandmother has wheels. With equal validity. I agree that "if our observations are wrong, the theory built from those observations might be wrong". But... so what? The point is we are not talking about our inability to observe something. We are talking about our *ability* to observe the *lack* of something. If particles have definite position and momentum but we just can't see it, they wouldn't form interference patterns. If local hidden varibles exist then the "Aspect" experiments wouldn't come out the way they do. And so on. -- My math requires, when mesons pair, A particle that isn't there. It isn't there again today. Please, Fermi, make it go away! --- Karen Anderson -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/30/86)
> mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) > I don't *think* I read Wayne wrong. He seems pretty clear in the quoted > segment above, where he says that various pieces of information [about > quantum mechanical systems, I believe] are Unknowable (capital "U") since > they cannot be apprehended by us or anyone else. Okay so far? In his > view (Wayne, where are you? I'm insecure when speaking for others), > there are some aspects of these systems about which information is not > merely beyond our sensory and instrument capacity, it simply is not > there at all. Hmmmmmm. Perhaps I was more unclear that I thought. I posted a rather flip comparison to my grandmother having wheels (which Michael apparently hasn't seen yet... hope it didn't offend), which I would like to expand upon here. First, I am *not* saying that data "hidden" by uncertainty is Unknowable because it is unknown. Not at all. I'm saying that it is a mischaracterization of the notion of uncertainty to claim that it is an observer-related phenomenon at all. The portions of the theory that derive the uncertainty relationships *don't* *mention* *observers* *at* *all*. They state that *really* and *truely*, the data isn't there. Now, if you wish to say that "the theory might be wrong", OK, fine, I'm easy. But my "theory" that my grandmother doesn't have wheels might be wrong also. Nevertheless, if somebody said that "You can't rule out some observer being able to see the tread pattern on your grandmother's wheels.", I'd feel justified in replying "But my grandmother doesn't even *HAVE* wheels!" Similarly with data "hidden" by uncertainty. There *may* be data there. And my grandmother *might* have intangible wheels. I hope my thoughts are clearer. I'm *not* saying that current theories cannot be wrong. I'm saying that current theories imply that no observer can "see" the "hidden" data, not because of some lack in observers, but because the data just isn't there. The original posting (by Stuart Gathman, if I'm not mistaken) focused on the observer, saying that all observers may not be limited as QM says we are. My objection is that QM *DOESN'T* *SAY* that we are limited! This is a common misconception that I tried to clear up, not too well it seems in retrospect. Sigh. -- My math requires, when meson's pair, A particle that isn't there. It isn't there again today. Please, Fermi, make it go away! --- Karen Anderson -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw