From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:19:07 -0500, remove wrote:   
      
   > David Mitchell wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:51:59 -0500, remove wrote:   
      
   > What photon?   
   > Sometimes it has the properties of a particle,   
      
   _That_ photon.   
      
   > Light is not objective.  So who can say if light is or is   
   > not absorbed by anything.  We can't tell.  It seems to be when we want   
   > it to be or are testing for it to be.   
      
   Highlighting the next part   
      
   > In reality who knows?   
      
   Because I'll refer to it later.   
      
   > A single electron (feel free to insert photon here) can   
   > enter two openings placed at a distance at the same time, until you test   
   > to see if it is indeed going thou both, then it is fixed in one or the   
   > other.   
      
   That's one interpretation of it, yes.  Wheeler has another, as does John   
   Cramer and as did David Bohm.   
      
   > Here I am says the happy little electron.  Bell theorem proves   
   > that as in the subatomic realm so in the macro realm.  It is forty years   
   > old and did cause a very real contraversity over the years.   
      
   Bell (and Aspect) only showed that Bohm was wrong with his "hidden   
   variable" hypothesis.   
      
   The other explanations, MW, and Cramer's Transactional Analysis are still   
   un-falsified (in fact, recent work seems to eliminate MW and the   
   Copenhagen Interpretation and suggest that Cramer was right).   
      
   > I really don't care if you can get useful information faster then light.   
   >   It is meaningless if Captain Kurk can talk to Earth in real time while   
   > he is Warping around Ur-anus.   
      
   It _is_ important, it was the pivot on which the whole EPR paradox rested:   
   Einstein "knew" that nothing could travel FTL, and yet QM seemed to   
   demand it - hence a paradox.   
      
   >> A minor point; but as I've already told you Newtonian physics is not   
   >> always deterministic.   
   >   
   > No, it is not a minor point.   
      
   Okay, you're wrong about a _major_ point then.   
   Suit yourself ;-)   
      
   > The EPR paper was written to disprove Quantum.   
      
   No, it was a thought experiment which the authors seemed to think   
   invalidated QM because they didn't believe that information could travel   
   faster than light.   
      
   Later work showed that "information" doesn't travel faster than light -   
   which is why it _is_ important.   
      
   > Thus the universe we experience is changed by our very   
   > observation of it.  Jeeze this is sophomore physics.   
      
   Yes, and I've known it since I was about 18; but, really, so what?   
   I can't really see why you think it means that the Universe is not   
   "Objective" unless you also think that the Copenhagen Interpretation is   
   true, and there's no reason to think that is the case, as I have already   
   pointed out.   
      
   An "unmeasured electron", to coin a phrase, is as real, as "objective" as   
   it ever was, it's just different, inasmuch as some of its properties are   
   "fuzzy".   
      
   >> "Locality" is effectively preserved because you cannot transfer   
   >> information in this way, and hence cannot violate causality.   
   >   
   > Flat out wrong.   
      
   Prove it.   
      
   > It's been reviewed over fifty years ago.  Old stuff.  Accepted basic   
   > underlying principles upon which all the pop culture physics you read is   
   > based.   
      
   No, QM is "Old Stuff", the _interpretation_ you're choosing to believe, is   
   old stuff; but whether it's correct or not, is simply unknown.   
      
   > Sorry it just doesn't work   
   > because your intuition relies on the assumption that an underlying   
   > objective reality exists that can be weighed, measured and counted.   
      
   Nothing in QM contradicts that - it just says that there are certain   
   properties which don't appear to be well-defined until we measure them.   
      
   You don't seem to be aware of any of philosophy behind this, so I'd better   
   explain:   
   The Copenhagen Interpretation is that some part of the measurement process   
   defines the values, the Many Worlds Interpretation says that all values   
   exist in their own universe and we find ourselves in one or the other at   
   random, Cramer says that the particles send, effectively, messages back to   
   themselves from the future, and some physicists believe that the   
   properties become defined when they interact more than some small amount   
   with their environment.   
      
   No-one disputes the facts, they just dispute their interpretation.   
      
   Only one of those Interpretations involves any "subjectivity" at all, and   
   if the CI were proven to be the correct interpretation, then it _would_ be   
   a subjective universe, to the extent that consciousness would be shown to   
   shape the universe.   
      
   However, it _isn't_ necessarily true, (and is unlikely to be so, IMO).   
      
   > Ain't so.  Things change because we are looking at them ... subjective   
   > ... see?   
      
   Only if you accept the CI as the explanation for why.  See above.   
   You seem to be half aware of this, you said "It seems to be when we want   
   it to be or are testing for it to be.  In reality who knows?"   
      
   Which "reality" are you talking about there?   
   Surely not an objective one?   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)