From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Feb 20 15:21:00 EST 1992
Article 3756 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Message-ID: <1992Feb15.042123.18948@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 15 Feb 92 04:21:23 GMT
References: <65812@netnews.upenn.edu> <413@tdatirv.UUCP> <66142@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 16

In article <66142@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>If the author claims his experiment rules out other interpretations, he
>is speaking nonsense.  Since the results are as predicted by QM decades
>ago--or whenever the idea was first thought up--QM theoreticians could
>have "proven" the same result long ago.
>
>The point is, perhaps wave function collapse did occur at the device,
>or perhaps it didn't.  In the latter case, the device goes into a QM
>superposition of states--Schroedinger's feline effect--and it is only
>the human who finally looks at the device that causes wave function
>collapse.  There is no way for their experiment to tell the difference.
>
There is one little subtle point I wish to make about this last comment.
The human that finally looks at the device is *you*, are you suggesting
that the world depends on your (in particular) view? Subjectivity - here
we come!


