Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA26968 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:51:23 GMT From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 23:45:28 +0100 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Barren Desolate Wasteland of Superdeterminism Message-ID: <3C51EE18.8717.334B13@localhost> In-reply-to: <001201c1a5f2$e4f1b900$2503aace@oemcomputer> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 25 Jan 2002, at 13:51, Philip Jonkers wrote:
> 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.
Well the difference is, although not theoretically complete, that we
can observe newton's laws for instance. If i let something fall it falls
and has a certain increasing velocity. This can be directly
observed. What can't be proven here of course is that this is
Now there is the difference to quantum mechanics. We also can
observe certain behaviors of electrons like in the double-split
experiment which are sure true and which i don't deny.
BUT what quantum mechanics does it that it not only observes the
behavior of electrons and the statistical outcome of the experiment
but it also concludes from this that the behavior is indeterministic
or random. And this part is wrong in my eyes.
The right conclusion would be to say that the behavior can't be
explained with the knowledge and measurement-tools we have so
far. But it should keep the option open that there might be an
underlying (deterministic) physical law behind it.
At this point it is of course just belief. It might be 'truly random' or
there might be a law behind it. We don't know. Some people find it
more comfortable to think of a random underlying structure, and
some prefer thinking that God does not throw a dice.
QM is not a bad theory because it can be used for constructing
advanced tools. There's no problem in using the statistical
knowledge we have. The only point which annoys me is the
philosophical opinion behind it, which is not required for the theory
to be useful.
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 : Sat Jan 26 2002 - 00:06:51 GMT