Ian 7 Sep, you spoke ::
> Just one objection Bo. (apart from S/O being intellect's highest static > good "so far") S/O isn't intellect's highest good. S/O is intellect and thus the highest static good ... IMO > You reminded us .. "This experiment was made possible by the late > seventies and all proved Quantum Theory right." (That experiment is > also in the Lindley book BTW) BUT - No experiment proves any theory > right. Don't pull the "besserwisser" stunt. > As you well know, it just proves the one hypothetical objection wrong > - as I correctly said he (they, EPR) didn't nail what the issue was in > that paper, and as you say, that was also eventually shown by > experiment. The LHC will be no different - just a lot more expensive > and dangerous ;-) I'm not all sure what you say here, but within science's premises (the Q-intellectual level) the said experiments proved Quantum Theory right. Much like the often - by me - talked about calculation prowess of ancient Egyptians and Babylonians - for instance - who knew that the squared hypotenuse equal the ditto legs ..you know) it never failed them, but it was not until the Greek Pythagoras worked out the theorem that showed WHY it must be true always. > Einstein's concern was the problem with what QM said / says about > reality - not whether the mathematical theory is right. Again, within science's premises, math is supposed to correspond to reality and when Einstein worked out the said experiment and its mathematics he was sure that this was the ultimate test to reveal the "hidden parameters" that cause QT's weirdness. And typically enough Einstein is not only regarded proven wrong, the QT is regarded correct, this issue is dropped completely. Now, only we (inititated) know about SOM as "science's premises" and that science is a sub-set under a greater DQ/SQ premises. To ordinary people science treats objective reality and the Quantum weirdness is swept under the rug and/or regarded "confined to mathematics". I guess that's what you hint to. > Need to be careful - the Einstein / Bohr difference - in "similar" > effects in other fields of knowledge,not to confuse metaphor with any > sameness of "physical" reality. But, Einstein and Bohr were both > concerned with the metaphysical questions posed - I agree that is what > is interesting, the scientific theories less so. Yes, Bohr and Einstein was very much concerned with physics' impact on philosophy, but neither lived to see the said thought experiment realized. I guess both would have understood and embraced the MOQ ... its "strong" SOL interpretation that is ;-) . Bodvar Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
