🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <303@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In QM there is a disconnect between the theory, which talks only about
>probabilities, and experimental observations. It is this disconnect
>that is the source of the problems of interpretation. One literally
>does not know what one is talking about when one starts discussing
>inherently random processes, as opposed to statistical models that result
>from incomplete knowledge or an incomplete model.

I'm afraid that all I can get out of these comments (and the ones
which followed) is that you, seemingly, agree with Einstein that "God
does not play dice with the universe". 

But what if the universe just *has* randomly behaving components,
anyway, in spite of your wanting a theory which is deterministically
linked to observations? What if it there simply is no correct
deterministic theory? Then asking for a probabilistic theory to be
"formalized" so as to take the form of a deterministic theory is
not necessary.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca