Which universe are we in? (tossing tennis balls into spinning props)

[Peter Fairbrother]

> Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> At 03:27 PM 7/15/02 +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>>> Optimizzin Al-gorithym wrote:
>> 
>>> And while QM can't help you with a particular atom, it also doesn't
> say
>>> that its impossible that knowledge of internal states of the atom
>>> wouldn't help you predict its fragmentation.
>> 
>> Yes it does.
>> 
>> Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Ring a Bell?
> 
> The uncertainty principle says that there is a limit on the information
> about
> position and change in position that you can collect.  It does not rule
> out
> internal states.  For instance, you could generate particles with a
> certain property
> which you do not have to measure to know that they have that property.
> 
> It is a logical mistake to think that because you can't see it in 2002,
> you can't ever
> measure it, or it doesn't exist.  When something appears 'random', it is
> because of
> (wholly normal) ignorance on our part.   Sometimes 'randomness' is used
> to
> shut off analytic machinery, much like 'God'  (this latter idea is
> Minsky's).

Oh dear. QM does rule out internal states.

I didn't think I would have to explain why I capitalised "Bell", but perhaps
it was a bit too subtle. Google "Bell" and "inequalities", and go from
there. 

The uncertainty principle was generally considered to rule out internal
states long before Bell, though. Since around 1930, I think. Whether QM/the
uncertainty principle is wrong is a different question.

-- Peter Fairbrother

ps Are you a PFY (or a PFO), or is your name really Variola?