🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C1F4uJ.EtG@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.195455.26027@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>>In article <C17sFv.L03@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
>>Grossman) writes:
>>|> Quantum mechanics-the mechanics of quanta

>>|> Quanta-Nietzsche's active centers of energy, randomly combining into
>>|>       temporary entities

This paranoia is unbelievable!  Now the QM physicists are in league with 
Nietzsche!  There is nothing intrinsic to the definition of quanta involving
randomness, the essential content pertains to divisibility and scale.  There
is also no intrisic concept of temporariness.
    
>>|> mechanics-study of energy and entities
>>|>
>>|> QM-the probability of random energy 

Absolute rubbish.  QM, in its attempt to model the quantum world, does just
fine, and they weren't all closet determinists the positivists would truly
love it.  The only time there is any "problem" with QM (this is admittedly
a simplification, but I am trying to get a point in Grossman's head here, and
based upon inductive reasoning don't rate my chanes too highly) is when an
attempt is made to interpret the model as representing reality.  This is not
a "sneaking" matter at all; many regard it as an essential task of science
and reason plays a central role in the project.

That the project of generating a credible account of the reality which it is
assumed gives rise to the chains of events modelled by QM has created a great
deal of scientific conflict and confusion is the case partly _because_ of a
general reluctance to abandon the very principles of rationality which you
so vocally defend, albeit at time regarding the principles as too precious
to actually _use_.  The choice between abandoning your science for your 
assumptions, or droppping the assumptions which gave you the science and 
which you use to make sense of the rest of your world is not an easy one.

It would help matters immensely if you either:

(1) Dignified all your postings with proper arguments.

(2) Dignified this and other groups which you presently saturate with the
    courtesy of being more careful about your facts.  Unlike option (1) this
    would have the effect of vastly reducing the number of your postings,
    since it appears that the class of fields in which you are actually
    competent is vanishingly small.

(3) Both of the above.

>>|>When QM "scientists" stop sneakin' bits of reality and reason into their
>>|>"science" they will light some incense, mumble the appropriate chant, and
>>|>prostrate themselves before the ineffable. Ommmmmmmm........

>>As I wrote to Betsy, it is better to meet you with decent argument.
>>I think the above is an example of a nonsensical letter. There is no
>>argument, no support of any assertions, and even barely a statement.
>>The only thing that is happening is that you are talking unsubstantiated
>>nonsense about "scientists". I _might_ even agree to the sentiment
>>behind what you have written, but what you have written is worthless.
>>Objectively.

>SG      What sentiment? I provided definitions and a judgement about philsophy 
>of science. My truncated style is no excuse to avoid my ideas. 	

Your definitions were inaccurate and your judgement uninformed, malicious
and childishly expressed.  Since your style centrally involves radical
undersubstantiation of your views it appears that it is you who are avoiding
the ideas.

If you want to reply _please_ keep it off the group.

o---------------------------------------------------------------------------o
| David Spurrett,   Philosophy  "It is the mark of an educated mind to seek |
| Dept,  Univ of Natal, Durban  in each  inquiry the sort of precision  the |
| spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za  nature of the subject permits." (Aristotle) |
o---------------------------------------------------------------------------o