From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Feb 20 15:20:42 EST 1992
Article 3724 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Message-ID: <413@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 13 Feb 92 19:49:40 GMT
References: <jbaxter.697533284@adelphi> <406@tdatirv.UUCP> <65812@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 17

In article <65812@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|
|I have made this correction several times, and I will continue to make it.
|The above claim is nonsense, and has been known to be nonsense for decades.
|See Wigner and von Neumann's work on measurement.

How is it nonsense?

Especially if there is an actual experimental result to back it up?

You may disagree with the interpretation of the experiment, but that
does *not* make the author's interpretation *nonsense*.  (And do please
note, the interpretation I am giving is explicitely stated in the Science
News article - it *not* originally mine).
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


