From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Feb 20 15:20:52 EST 1992
Article 3742 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Message-ID: <1992Feb14.180437.14620@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <406@tdatirv.UUCP> <65812@netnews.upenn.edu> <413@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 18:04:37 GMT

In article <413@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <65812@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>|
>|I have made this correction several times, and I will continue to make it.
>|The above claim is nonsense, and has been known to be nonsense for decades.
>|See Wigner and von Neumann's work on measurement.
>
>How is it nonsense?
>
>Especially if there is an actual experimental result to back it up?
>
Good god, Stanley, you write about "Experiment" like a high school student.
It has long since been show that for any finite set of data (And I count
the results of AN experiment as being a finite set of data) there are 
infinite theories which can explain it.  Just because you picked one theory
(what you're calling an "intepretation") which is confirmed by one experiment
doesn't mean that theory's true. It means just slightly more than didily
squat in terms of confirmation. There an infinite set of theories that 
would be confirmed by the same result. Where has your philoopshy of
science been since the days of John Stuart Mill?

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


