Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA26671 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:58:42 GMT Message-ID: <001201c1a5f2$e4f1b900$2503aace@oemcomputer> From: "Philip Jonkers" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <3C51562C.31261.1A6416@localhost> Subject: Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of Superdeterminism Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 13:51:56 -0900 Organization: Prodigy Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Nature seems to
> > be intrinsically indeterministic at small enough scales. Einstein, being
> > of the last of the scholars of the classical school of physical
> > couldn't get used to that and a lot still can't, including you
> Well yes, because i can't understand how you can PROVE that
> something happened indeterministic. In my eyes, when something
> appears indeterministic or random it's because we LACK
> something, measurement tools or knowledge!
Let me set something straight here. There is no branch of science that can
go out and prove the correctness of a theory. QM is no different: you can't
prove whether or not it corresponds exactly to how nature works. The only
field that can actually prove things is mathematics. Physics makes models of
the world, and only within the reach of that model can there be certainty as
which outcomes are possible and with what probability. If we are honest as
scientists we simply can't say with certainty how nature really works. All
can do is come up with plausible and possible scenarios and descriptions.
Experimental tests aimed to confirm a theory not rarely realizes the
actual rejection of the thesis. All I am saying is that after 75 years of
such well-aimed life-attempts, it is getting more and more likely that QM
actually gives a correct description of nature in its smallest of being.
There have been many attempts to prove the incompleteness of QM. The most
well known candidates are called Hidden Variable theories which have
deterministic postulates. All have been refuted however.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 25 2002 - 22:09:31 GMT