From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Jun  9 10:06:23 EDT 1992
Article 6037 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!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: <1992Jun2.125840.18700@cs.ucf.edu>
Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
Organization: University of Central Florida
References: <1992Jun1.201556.24184@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1992 12:58:40 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <1992Jun1.201556.24184@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick  
Cassimatis) writes:
> The other thing that bothers me is the probablistic character of QM.
> That our theory of certain phenomena is only probablistic is no reason
> to elevate our ignormance to a property of the universe.  Even if
> Heisenberg's principle is true and thus prevents us from getting a
> deterministic theory, this would seem not imply that the universe is
> random, but only that our understanding of it is constrained.

The QM literature shows that people have been trying to squirm out
of the conclusion that the ignorance is a property of the universe
since QM's inception.  The jury is still out, but the simplest, if most
puzzling interpretations of QM have an ignorant universe.

> Though I emphatically do not mean to suggest that this is the
> motivation of Thomas' sober comments, Chaos and QM seem to be all to
> ready excuses for people to wax mystical (Dawkings' phrase.)

I thought discussions of mind were inherently mystical :-)
--
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


