"..., it has been repeated _at nauseam_ that Einstein's main objection
to quantum theory was its lack of determinism: Einstein could not abide a God
who plays dice. Buy what annoyed Einstein was not lack of determinism, it was
the apparent failure of _locality_ in the theory on account of entanglement.
Einstein recognized that, given the predictions of quantum theory, only a
deterministic theory could eliminate this non-locality, and so he realized that
a local theory must be deterministic. But it was the locality that mattered to
him, not the determinism. We now understand, due to the work of Bell, that
Einstein's quest for a local theory was bound to fail.
(Maudlin, Tim, 'Quantum Non-Locality & Relativity')
On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:40 PM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Ron,
> Yes, usefulness is key. Let's throw out the useless. Where do we start?
>
> The usefulness of wave functions is yet to be determined. Sure they are part
> of the "theory", in fact, they are the theory. A new mathematical model is
> needed for particle physics, to get away from statistics. That would be
> useful. But, how would current physicists get their funding?
>
> Christ is a useful function in the theory of Christianity too. Its
> usefulness seems more common than wavelets. Such usefulness has killed many
> more people than the nuclear bomb, so far...
>
> Let's not tie MoQ to statistics. "God" does not throw dice, and this is not
> a casino. Free will is not a matter of chance.
>
> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
> Mark
>
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 8:11 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Robert Pirsig:
>>>
>>> "This is the usual argument against the philosophic idealism
>>> that is part of the MOQ so it had better be answered here.
>>> It is similar to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and
>>> nobody hears it, does it make a sound?” The historic
>>> answer of the idealists is, “What tree?”
>>> "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
>>> of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
>>> vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
>>> already been presupposed.
>>> "This presupposition is a standard logical fallacy known as a
>>> hypothesis contrary to fact. It is the “hypothetical question” that is
>>> always thrown out of court as inadmissible." [LILA'S CHILD annotation 80]
>>>
>>> Ron comments:
>>> In the context of "the historical response of the Idealists" (of which is
>>> part
>>> of the MoQ)it is to be clear about the context of the conversation, since
>>> a hypothosis always deals with presuppositions it only makes sense to
>>> follow through
>>> in the logical consistancy within the context and that they only work as
>>> hypothisis if
>>> they are taken to follow the patterns observed in experience.
>>> The people throwing out hypothisis based on the fact that they are
>>> hypothisis are positivists
>>> the aggressive sort which tends to take the tack that if it is not directly
>>> observed
>>> that it does not exist. Pirsig is saying that the type of question is
>>> thrown out not hypothetical
>>> questions in general.
>>>
>>> According to Pirsig that which has value exists. In that order, if a
>>> hypothisis has value
>>> (the sort of value that is consistent with experience) and has been tested
>>> in experience
>>> ie. trees make sounds when they fall and dog dishes continue to exist ,
>>> then the hypothisis
>>> certainly IS admissable because it also holds the power to make accurate
>>> predictions in
>>> experience.
>>>
>>> Positing that trees dont make sounds and dog dishes vanish run contrary to
>>> patterns observed
>>> in experience it is the logical fallacy which is the "hypothisis contrary
>>> to fact" it is also a positivist
>>> position.
>>>
>>> ..Which begs the question as to why , exactly, Dan brings this into the
>>> discussion with Matt to
>>> support his contention. Unless Dan is saying that Pirsig is supporting a
>>> positivist point of view
>>> in regard to biography and historical context.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> You have misunderstood the discussion, Ron. I didn't say that trees
>> don't make sounds and dog dishes disappear. I asked what did Robert
>> Pirsig mean by: what trees? I asked how to empirically verify the
>> existence of trees or dog dishes when we don't experience them... when
>> they are imaginary. You have miscontrued what I said. We are on
>> completely different pages so far as I can tell.
>>
>> Thanks anyway,
>>
>> Ron:
>> Yea, we are always on different pages when we disagree about anything.
>>
>> Asking how to verify, as I stated before, and what I believe Pirsig means,
>> empirically, presupposed hypothetical trees, is " a standard logical
>> fallacy known as a
>> hypothesis contrary to fact. "
>> Eliminating all hypotheisis because it can not be empirically verified
>> (observed) is the
>> position known as positivism. Steven Weinburg, a noted Quantum Physicist
>> said this
>> about positivism:
>> "Wave functions are "real" for the same reasons quarks and symmetries are -
>> because
>> it is useful to include them in our theories".
>>
>> Pirsig says something similar:
>> "In order to ask this question you have to presuppose the existence
>> of the falling tree and then ask whether this presupposed tree would
>> vanish if nobody were there. Of course, it wouldn’t vanish! It has
>> already been presupposed."
>>
>> In this light asking how to empirically verify presupposed trees is the
>> problem
>> it is a logical fallacy to even ask the question.
>>
>> ..thanks anyway
>>
>> ..
>> 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/md/archives.html
> 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/md/archives.html
___
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/md/archives.html
