> 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?