On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > I'll have to look at the reference you gave later, its blocked by websense > here.
It was a review for a book, and apparently the review was better than the book was, say other reviewers, but here's what I was talking about: For a start, Einstein was himself a pioneer of quantum theory, having suggested in 1905 that light was quantized in other words, that it was not smoothly continuous, but could only exist in multiples of very small packets, or quanta. At the time, Kumar relates, this was just too radical for physicists to accept. Two decades later, the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr and his colleagues, who had taken this idea and run with it, were now too radical for Einstein to accept. But Einstein did not merely snipe ineffectually from the sidelines at those who were doing important science. He was taken very seriously at the time, as Kumars thrilling narrative of a series of epic thought-experiment battles between Einstein and Bohr shows. The popular misconception of his role was in part Einsteins own fault, as he liked to repeat his slogan God does not play dice at every opportunity yet, as Kumar demonstrates, his real objection was not to the probabilistic or statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, but to its radical denial of an independent reality. ... ... Kumars story finishes by noting the results of a 1999 poll of physicists at a Cambridge conference as to which interpretation of quantum mechanics they preferred. Of 90 respondents, only four voted for the Copenhagen interpretation, but 30 favoured the modern version of [...] many worlds. Significantly, 50 ticked the box labelled none of the above or undecided. The question of the ultimate nature of reality is, it seems, still a live problem. Somewhere, Einstein is puffing on his pipe and smiling ironically. Course now I want to read this other book, "Quantum Zoo", which had more favorable reviews. Wow. Letting reviews shape my decisions. How crazy is that? > objective reality? not sure. we do not see things feel or taste > things, we rely on the interpretations that the data processing system > gives us. I would perhaps argue that due to this, even if there *is* an objective reality, we're incapable of appreciating(?) it. Or maybe it's comprehension/appreciation is innate to us, and we're sorta silly-ly looking around for more, um, proof(?)-- to express what I'm getting at in my truly poor fashion. :) > with most people, with just a bit of talking with them they will ... The deal about the chair reminds me of another one of Adam's deals: The Somebody Else's Problem cloaking field. I swear, that dude was (is?) just dialed in! (I put the is? there because, well, existence is strange) This thread is awesome. It's got the potential to go anywhere, at anytime. And all from blatant troll bait (not bait for trolls, rather, trolls baiting). Not bad. Do Gelly/Sambo keep score, I wonder? Anybody up to do some rather fun stats type stuff for the list content? Larry, you've probably got some good ideas for fun ways at looking at the content-- funner stuff than just number of posts or number of responses to posts, etc.. Anything off the top of your head? Just to really take this thread for a spin, and perhaps shed light on our own unnoticed, um, hypno-SEP-field-type-deals. Rather! :DeN -- Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with 'the world'; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous. Nelson Goodman (this quote was "rando ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312878 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
