From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Mon Mar  9 18:33:03 EST 1992
Article 4059 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Message-ID: <453@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 26 Feb 92 21:21:38 GMT
References: <66422@netnews.upenn.edu> <427@tdatirv.UUCP> <66636@netnews.upenn.edu> <437@tdatirv.UUCP> <66994@netnews.upenn.edu> <448@tdatirv.UUCP> <67404@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 41

In article <67404@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|In article <448@tdatirv.UUCP>, sarima@tdatirv (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>Given the two possible interpretations, the additional features of
|>the Copenhagen interpretation become *assumptions*, since they are no
|>longer directly supported by the observed data.
|
|And vice versa.

Except that in the physical interpretation the only 'additional' features
are ones that are generally accepted in all branches of modern science
except quantim physics.  Thus, in my book they are not *additional*, they
are simply part of the scientific paradigm.

It is *this* that makes the Copenhagen interpretation less likely, and
intrinsically more complex, then the physical one.

And this really was the main point of my prior post.

IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE DUALISTIC THEORIES HAVE UNIVERSALLY FAILED.
They have an *abysmal* track record.  Why should it be different now?
Why should our current ignorance be any more inspired than the ignorance
of biologists 100 years ago?
[And do not make the mistake of thinking that the dualistic theories of,
say 18th century biology were stupid or hopelessly naive, they were held
by brilliant, well-informed scientists - they made as much sense then as
the Copenhagen interpretation appears to now - but they were all proven
wrong in time].

|>I am simply saying that assuming a mystical explanataion, and leaving it
|>there, like the Copenhageners, is a *dead* *end*.  It suggest no research,
|>it leaves no scope for improved understanding, it just says 'this is
|>incomprehensible'.
|
|No, it says that the understanding will come from investigating the mind.

I do not see how it adds anything there either.  At best it has no relevance
to the study of minds, at worst it makes minds intractable to study.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



