At 07:32 15/06/98 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-06-12 20:12:29 EDT, you write: > ><< Of course this "reality" of macroscopic stuff does not > necessarily contradict the ontological/epistemological > murkiness that apparently exists at the quantum level. On > this, however, I must side with Jim D. There is a more > "conservative" interpretation of Heisenberg, that says > "yes, there are simultaneously momentum and location, but > we just can't measure them." Of course the Copenhagen > Interpretation disagrees, as has been noted. > Barkley Rosser ____________ There seems to be some problem with pen-l. I never received Barkley's post, and I don't know how many other posts I never received. Is anybody else having similar problem? Cheers, ajit sinha > >> >If I am not mistaken, the hidden variable stand is contradicted >by experiments showing the validity of Bell's Theorem. >Some of the possible interpretations that are favored in >quantum mechanics to solve this problem and to save >causality are super-luminality (ie signals traveling faster >than the speed of light) and David Bohm's theories >of non-local information (which may effect be the same >a super-luminality). The Many Worlds interpretation is >also, I believe, a consistent answer to the causality problem. > >(Personally, I seriously doubt whether epistemology really >matters.) > >-Paul Meyer > > >
