From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Jun  9 10:06:52 EDT 1992
Article 6075 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.122704.12819@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jun3.191548.26490@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1992 12:27:04 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <1992Jun3.191548.26490@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu  
(Randall Holmes) writes:
> In article <1992Jun2.182927.22085@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> >In article <1992Jun2.155056.11642@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu  
> >(Randall Holmes) writes:
> >> In article <1992Jun2.131851.18895@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
> >Clarke) writes:
> >> >While not (Turing) machine can predict QM effects, QM effects happen so
> >> >the universe "predicts" them.  Perhaps a subset of the universe can
> >> >be boxed into a convenient black box machine that can "predict" these
> >> >effects in a computationaly useful way.  (Is the brain such a black
> >> box?)
> >> 
> >> The universe does not predict the QM effects; it simply exhibits them.
> >> It would only predict them if it were actually deterministic on a
> >> deeper level; i.e., if QM were only an approximation to the real
> >> situation!
> >
> >Hence the quotation marks around predicts!  Neither may my brain
> >calculate (or simulate) intelligence, it may just exhibit it.
> 
> Good point.  (Not that I agree! -- I still think that thought is
> "calculation", but this is an assumption which has to be made
> explicit).
>
Thanks for the phraseology.  "Exhibits" is a good way to put the
distinction I perceive on odd days. 

> I think that "hidden variables" is the correct explanation of the
> physical reality (which is not to say that I am disputing QM
> predictions).  I think that particles are real (they leave little
> spots on emulsions; how real can you get?) but that the "waves" are
> not.  The wave side of the duality is (I think) a mathematical
> representation of what information we are allowed to have about the
> real particles (restrictions imposed by the quantum of action); and we
> actually do "observe" the effects of waves via statistical
> distribution of observations of _particles_ (waves are arguably never
> directly observed!)  

We're getting into sci.physics territory, but I think you get into trouble
with a pure particle picture also.  See Bernard d'Espagnat "The Quantum
Theory and Reality", Sci. Am. (1983? amazing - I tore the article out of
my copy and it has no date on it - e-mail me and I'll try to find the
citation).  d'Espagnat uses a wave-free discussion to show how reasoning
about independently existing particles with definite properties (spin
in this case) leads to Bell's inequalities which contradict quantum 
mechanics.  The experiments have been done to test the inequalities 
and quantum mechanics wins!  

Intense debate about what this all means continues in philosophical circles.
Physicists just yawn and say "of course."
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu


