[MD] Uncertainty

[MarshaV]

It might have been you who mentioned 'greedy reductionism, too many isms to
keep track of.  Any word on CERN's LHC?  

I really do wonder what it must be like when you are immersed in Quantum
theory and really believe it is "real"?  I read somewhere that many govt.
grants include a clause to educate the public. 

Something else?  The placebo effect.  Wondering if there isn't something
similar in many fields of knowledge.  Strange consideration I know, but not
any stranger that what one is expected to believe in much of modern science.
I am definitely not against modernity, but as a MoQ'er I see it as having a
tendency to be selfish and heartless, and arrogant: "This is "real"!".  Or
maybe that's just me.  Krimel would think science should be embraced with a
full heart.     

How strange my world has become that I should know of such techniques as
renormalization. Hahahaha.  Crazy!  Going to make cookies with my sweet
little grandson today.  Balance!



Marsha 
 

  



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 3:48 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Uncertainty

Yes,
Bell's response to the EPR paper is included in the Lindley book too.
Just because Einstein didn't nail it in that paper, doesn't mean his
underlying concern was wrong - just difficult to present a case. As I
understand it his two "identical" electrons "thought experiment" was
flawed in its initial boundary conditions being impossible in reality.
Easy for logicians and mathematicians to find the fault - much harder
to find reality.

Sad thing is, that same soap-opera is still on a long "interval".

(You probably heard me mention Dennett & greedy reductionism before ?)
Regards
Ian



On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:08 AM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Ian,
>
> Physics professor said John Bell proved Einstein in EPR paper absolutely
> wrong.  I will get 'The Cartoon History of Time', it's all too interesting
> not to continue the investigation.  What a soap opera!  And so many loose
> wiggling threads to follow.  Greedy reductionism?  I've heard that phrase
> before, maybe from dmb.
>
> And in Matt's book, Plato is shrinking. There's not a lot of satisfaction,
> because I keep asking why did he rule supreme for so long?  No answer
there
> either, I suppose.
>
> I love books.
>
>
> Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/