🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <654@pbhyc.UUCP> djo@pbhyc.UUCP (Dan'l Oakes) writes:
>
>  (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.

It's completely obvious that you've never done any real physics experiments.
Experiments *never* *ever* give exactly repeatable results. (unless you're
using really poor measurement equipment) There are always errors, otherwise
known as uncertainty. Heisenberg merely showed there was a limit to the
amount you could reduce that uncertainty. The scientific method is not
dependent on determinacy; it *is* based on statistically similar results
in repeated experiments. You yourself stated that absolutely identical
conditions are impossible -- this itself would destroy the scientific
method by your reasoning.

The only thing that is destroyed is your deterministic world view.
Too bad for you. But don't claim that the validity of the scientific
method is in any way affected.

Look at the _Feynman Lectures on Physics_, Volume III, section 2-6
for a discussion of this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
					...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers