NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/physics/20981

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-12 | 1.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!mtnmath!paul
From: [e-mail] (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:15:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J. Giles) writes:
] In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul Budnik) writes:
] |>
] |> Unless you say what principles you are calling into question it is not
] |> possible to debate the issue. Any claim *might* be false if *all* principles
] |> of mathematics and science are called into question.
]
] But, I'm not making a scientific point - I'm making a
] philosophical one.  Namely that mathematics is a formal system
] invented by humans and its only connection with science is
] whatever properties can be verified independently.  Those
] properties of mathematical models which do not correspond
] to verifiable properties of reality are simply not demonstrably
] real and should not be touted as facts.

Yes, but one cannot carry on any scientific debate unless one assumes
that some mathematical models apply to physical reality. The basic
mathematics in Bell's result has been verified and is implicitly assumed
in most physical models. It is little more then elementary statistics and
some basic geometrical assumptions about space and time. Your point is true
trivial and irrelevant. If you want to debate a question such as this you
have to say what principles you are rejecting. Otherwise no rational
argument is possible.

Paul Budnik