[MD] Uncertainty

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian and Marsha

7 Sep. 

Ian wrote:
> 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.

Interesting as all this is -  the Bell Theorem, the EPR (Einstein, 
Podolsky, Rosen) paper (that formulated a thought experiment that 
would once and for all prove or disprove Quantum Theory (the latter 
was Einstein's hope). This experiment was made possible by the late 
seventies and all proved Quantum Theory right.  

I have an issue of Scientific American - Nov.1979 - with an article "The 
Quantum Theory and Reality" by Bernard d'Espagnat that really dives 
deep into these matters *) I won't add it to your reading list, just 
wonder what importance you see for the MOQ? This was the  death 
knell for SOM's objective part, but the MOQ isn't more fond of its 
"subjectivisms" ... or?    

*) At that time I was very keen on Quantum Theory - as I had been on 
Relativity before that - and wrote a letter to d'Espagnat who found my 
comments worth a reply, but after the MOQ this doesn't have the 
same philosophic interest. Maybe scientific.            


Then Marsha:
> 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.

This "what is it like to be ..." is  another conundrums that SOM 
imposes and what the MOQ "dissolves" by making SOM its own 
intellectual level. We are of all levels and "know what it's like to be" .. a 
biological being with no social or intellectual components, we know 
what it's like be a bio-socio being with no intellectual components  and 
we know what's it is like to be "immersed in quantum theory", namely a 
bio-socio-intellectual being without any MOQ ;-).          

> 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.     

You bet there is something similar in many fields of knowledge (if you 
mean the intellectual level) we end up in absurdity if its S/O is pursued 
far enough. The placebo effect shows that its "mind/body" split isn't 
fundamental, i.e. has no "jurisdiction" outside intellect. Yet, this is no 
promotion of witch-doctors and such, but of the MOQ where intellect's 
S/O is its highest static good - that science has brought us "modernity" 
-  yet if pursued too far as in Quantum Theory weirdness occurs. 

I mean pursued philosophically, not scientifically, and it's terribly 
interesting  to see what the CERN Super-Collider will reveal. My guess 
is just new and more short-lived and exotic particles. There's no "a-
tom" (indivisible particle)           

Bodvar, the "besserwisser"