From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue Jun  9 10:07:02 EDT 1992
Article 6087 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Quantum mechanics (no AI here, sorry)
Message-ID: <1992Jun04.223608.36310@spss.com>
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1992 22:36:08 GMT
References: <1992Jun3.192513.27263@uwm.edu> <1992Jun03.200425.39181@spss.com> <1992Jun4.201422.19176@uwm.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Lines: 26

In article <1992Jun4.201422.19176@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>I see the logic clearly:
><List of highly relevant and topical Quantum Theoretic issues>
>>"here lemme add some more"
><Semi-relevant issue, also false>
><Irrelevamnt issues>
>>"See?  Your list is irrelevant. Therefore Quantum Theory is complete."
>
>Gee, what an ingenious ploy.  "My theory can't be wrong, because your
>exceptions don't count"...
> [...]
>The theory has gaping holes in it and is woefully incomplete.

Gee, what an ingenious ploy.  Redefine your opponent's terms, fantasize 
about what he's saying, and establish your point by repetition.

I stated very clearly, in two separate posts, exactly what I meant by 
"holes" (namely, contradictions with experiment).  If you want to use the 
same word to mean something else (namely, things not covered by a theory), 
go ahead, but don't pretend that you're addressing what I'm saying.

Someone who reads English would also have noted that I made no claims about
QM being "right" or "complete".  

A discussion consisting of endless correction of your misinterpretations of
my words is infinitely dull; let's stop right here.


