From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc Tue Jun  9 10:06:15 EDT 1992
Article 6027 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!newshost.uwo.ca!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!rutgers!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc
>From: nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics (no AI here, sorry)
Message-ID: <1992Jun2.010249.29321@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 92 01:02:49 GMT
References: <1992Jun1.201556.24184@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun01.234940.40210@spss.com>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Lines: 29

In article <1992Jun01.234940.40210@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>Don't get your hopes up.  After 70 years there are no known holes in QM--
>it's always agreed with experiment.  Nor is there any guarantee
>that if it *is* replaced, you'll like the replacement any better.  :)

70 years is not that long of a time.  And to the best of my knowledge,
QM has evolved since it's invention.  That it and the rest of science
keeps on changing seems to be good enough reason to not let a priori
arguments based on *any* scientific theory move us too far on issues
of such importance.  Though you're right that replacements to QM might
be even more flaky.  My point was only that we can never be too
certain about this flakiness.

>This isn't just an analogy-- it's the reason behind the "uncertainty
>principle."  Position and momentum are different aspects of the quantum
>wavefunction of a particle; you can't get both at the same time for the
>same reason you can't analyze a wave into simple superimpositions of
>opposite waveforms.

Again, this seems to use language internal to the theory of QM.
Hence, it is a valid argument only insofar as QM is a valid theory.
This isn't enough for an a priori argument.

Thanks for the comments and references,
-Nick

PS Of course, I don't see any of the possible outcomes such
discussions would changing the way I think about AI or MOI (my own
intelligence).


