Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!dutton
From: dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <1994Nov1.123253.23632@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Followup-To: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.pagan,alt.atheism,talk.rel
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
References: <367dn4$ls@euskadi.idbsu.edu> <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <38qhnm$117@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk> <1994Oct30.160017.676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> <390ogd$g4o@shell1.best.com> <392j3j$cc6@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>
Date: 1 Nov 94 12:22:26 GMT
Lines: 38

Cameron Brown (ml330025@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au) wrote:

: >:: Can you honestly say that you can find something truly rsndom, or
: >:: are 'random' processes governed by very complex non-linear but
: >:: deterministic laws?
: >:
: >:Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics ?!?  Do the words uncertancy 
: >:principal ring any bells? Quantum processes are inhearently undeterministic.
: Ah, hate to throw in a spanner (I lie I love doing this) but The copenhagen
: interpretation of the quantum mechanical laws has been chalanged by the 
: Bohm interpration (see scientific american a few months ago) there may be 
: no uncertantity.

This interpratation, has been around for quite a while. There is a general
concensus amongst the physics community that it is highly questionable in
it's description of metaphysical reality. Just because someone writes a 
paper on something doesn't mean it suddenly becomes scientific fact. It remains
(normally) one of several theories on which over time a concensus will develop
as each theory is tested out etc....

: >    A better example would be nuclear decay, which is a very real process
: >    that can only be explained by that principle.  Without randomness, there is
: >    no way to explain how a particle can break free of the strong force.
: >    With randomness, there is a statistical chance that the partial will
: >    'move' far enough away to break free.

Good call.

:  doesent the quantum tunneling effect have to do with the spontanious 
: move from one energy level to another? what does that have to do with 
: nucular decay? please e mail as the response would not be aproprate on 
: this news group.

I'll leave this to someone else. You have succesfully demonstrated your lack 
of knowlege of physics, so Nuff Said.


Adrian.
