Jonathan and Squad,
Jonathan wrote,
It may all rest on
workings within Planck time and distance, but most of our knowledge is
based on empirical observations of probabilities and generalizations
from those.
Clark wrote,
Rereading some posts tonight and yours triggered some thoughts.
What you are saying above is that beyond the Hydrogen atom all of our
knowledge of the workings of the Quantum level is based on probability and
generalities.
I may have the wrong interpretation but my understanding of the Quantum
level is that no one has the capability to mathematically treat this level
beyond the organization of the Hydrogen atom. Beyond that the complexity is
so great (the three body problem I think) that we effectively know nothing
about the happenings at the Quantum level from the origin of the Hydrogen
atom until the present. As you say, our understanding beyond the simplest
atom is based on probability and generalization.
It seems to me that a system which gives near 100% predictability can be
suspected of being deterministic equally as well as being considered to be
completely random.
If we look at the Quantum level with a Pirsig spin It seems to me that it
would not violate any mathematical certainty if we said that the Quantum
level provides an unlimited number of degrees of freedom which gains a
focus on a particular set of circumstances when presented with that set of
possibilities. Since we are in complete ignorance of the operation of the
Quantum level in its dealings with almost all of the physical universe then
I think that such an outlook cannot be ruled out.
What I am saying is that the Quantum level COULD consist of an almost
infinite range of possibilities which appear random but which in reality
have the capability of adapting and providing the appropriate basis for any
physical situation with which it is presented. It appears random because of
its complete adaptability but is deterministic when called upon to provide
the basis for a physical process.
It seems to me that it strains credulity to insist that we have a
predictable universe sitting on top of a completely random process. Where
have I gone wrong in my reasoning? Ken
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST