[MD] Uncertainty

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian 

7 Sep, you spoke ::

> Just one objection Bo. (apart from S/O being intellect's highest static
> good "so far") 

S/O isn't intellect's highest good. S/O is intellect and thus the highest 
static good ... IMO  

> You reminded us .. "This experiment was made possible by the late
> seventies and all proved Quantum Theory right."  (That experiment is
> also in the Lindley book BTW)  BUT - No experiment proves any theory
> right. Don't pull the "besserwisser" stunt. 
 
> As you well know, it just proves the one hypothetical objection wrong
> - as I correctly said he (they, EPR) didn't nail what the issue was in
> that paper, and as you say, that was also eventually shown by
> experiment. The LHC will be no different - just a lot more expensive
> and dangerous ;-)

I'm not all sure what you say here, but within science's premises (the 
Q-intellectual level) the said experiments proved Quantum Theory 
right. Much like the often - by me - talked about calculation prowess of 
ancient Egyptians and Babylonians - for instance - who knew that  the 
squared hypotenuse equal the ditto legs  ..you know) it never failed 
them, but it was not until the Greek Pythagoras worked out the 
theorem that showed  WHY it must be true always.

> Einstein's concern was the problem with what QM said / says about
> reality - not whether the mathematical theory is right.

Again, within science's premises, math is supposed to correspond to 
reality and when Einstein worked out the said experiment and its 
mathematics  he was sure that this was the ultimate test to reveal the 
"hidden parameters" that cause QT's weirdness. And typically enough 
Einstein is not only regarded proven wrong, the QT is regarded 
correct, this issue is dropped completely.  

Now, only we (inititated) know about SOM as "science's premises" and 
that science is a sub-set under a greater DQ/SQ premises. To ordinary 
people science treats objective reality and the Quantum weirdness is 
swept under the rug and/or regarded "confined to mathematics". I 
guess that's what you hint to.           

> Need to be careful - the Einstein / Bohr difference - in "similar"
> effects in other fields of knowledge,not to confuse metaphor with any
> sameness of "physical" reality. But, Einstein and Bohr were both
> concerned with the metaphysical questions posed - I agree that is what
> is interesting, the scientific theories less so. 

Yes, Bohr and Einstein was very much concerned with physics' impact 
on philosophy, but neither lived to see the said thought experiment 
realized. I guess both would have understood and embraced the MOQ 
... its "strong" SOL interpretation that is ;-) . 

Bodvar