🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19045@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Paul Kube) writes:
>In article <651@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes) writes:
>>Actually, we can accept a much weaker condition -- the inadequacy of our
>>[current] mathematical model to describe the physical reality. 
>
>Fine, though it's nice to have a reason for doing so.

Reasons:  (1)  It's incredibly arrogant to simply assume that our mathematical
model *is* adequate in the present state of knowledge.  (2)  [and I expect to
be flamed to the stars for this] If we accept indeterminacy, the validity of
scientific method as a whole is called into question.  Scientific method is
based on the absolute repeatability of experiments under essentially identical
conditions.  The admission of indeterminacy is tantamount to admission that
experiments, even under absolutely identical conditions -- in itself an
impossibility -- are not repeatable, but only statistically similar.  The only
way to recreate determinacy in QM is through the admission of a "hidden
variable," something which determines the "indeterminate" regardless of our
state of knowledge.

>As it turns out, relative frequencies of outcomes observed in certain
>experiments violate the inequality.  This prima facie shows that
>either there are superluminal signals or there's a strange
>indefiniteness to particle state (coincidentally of the type required
>by a noninstrumentalist interpretation of QM).  

Or that QM is simply inadequate.  You've thrown that possibility out the
window unexamined.

>To argue for rejecting both of these conclusions, someone should
>either point out an error in the derivation of the inequality (pretty
>unlikely), some failing of the experiments (they've been repeated), or
>some particular infelicity in the application of the former to the
>interpretation of the latter.  I would like to see this.   But it's not
>enough just to say that it's always possible that our mathematics
>fails to correspond to reality (especially in this case where the
>mathematics was developed to describe, in a very general way, what
>should be observable in case there is some definite reality for our
>classical state variables to correspond to).

To say that the mathematics is "inadequate" is not equal to saying that
it "fails to correspond to reality."  Newtonian physics corresponds to
reality, within its limits.  When applied to relativistic speeds, masses,
etc., however, Newtonian physics becomes inadequate.

I suggest that something similar is taking place here:  that QM corresponds
to reality, within its limits; but that, just as the level of interpretation
and observation once showed Newtonian physics inadequate, so now QM is proving
inadequate under certain conditions.

Is that so improbable?

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

PS:  Note the name, it ain't Oakes no matter what this damnfool mailer program
thinks.