Re: What Theories Explain vs. What Explains Theories

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:41:16 -0400

Hi Lee,

 I am not sure this is the reply you mentioned in the
 previous post. If so I guess you decided to make it
 public. That is alright with me too.

 Godfrey Kurtz
 (New Brunswick, NJ)

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Lee Corbin <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
 To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
 Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:40:40 -0700
 Subject: What Theories Explain vs. What Explains Theories

 Godfrey writes

> > > Yes we cannot explain QM by classical physics
> > > but NEITHER can we explain from QM the classical
> > > world we know and love with its well defined and
> > > assigned elements of (naive) physical reality
> > > that you so much cherish, I am afraid! If we did
> > > there would not be no Measurement Problem, no spooky
> > > long-distance correlations, no zombie Schrodinger
> > > Cat's around to haunt us...
>
> > Quantum mechanics' greatest successes have included
> > explanations for what you cite. That is why QM is
> > accepted.
>
> My point is that it does NOT include explanations for
> any of the items I cite and that is why I cite them
> and that is why they are called "problems".

 We are using the term *explain* in different ways.

 Look, would you have disagreed (were you living in 1800)
 with the Marquis Pierre Simon de LaPlace when he would
 assert that Newton's theory of gravity explained all
 celestial movements?

 I guess so! YOU probably would have said, "Mais non,
 it does not explain how an influence can instantaneously
 reach out through space. It does not even explain what
 gravity *is*!" (And by the way, no fair using Mercury's
 orbit, the details of which were not discovered at that
 time.)

 LaPlace would have looked down his nose at you and replied
 that "the *theory* explains the movements, you fool. C'est
 facile de voir that you, Monsieur, wish to know what explains
 the theory. I have no need of your hypothesis, or of you."

 So likewise, I will say to you, we cannot explain quantum
 mechanics, but QUANTUM MECHANICS DELIVERS AN UNPRECEDENTED
 FIFTEEN DECIMAL PLACES OF ACCURACY and so explains incredibly
 perfectly the result of our laboratory experiments!

 [GK]
 Far from me to disagree with you, or Laplace! QM produces indeed
 the most impressive numerical predictions of any theory ever conceived
 by humans!

 [LC]
 YOU seem to want an explanation of (or a satisfactory interpretation
 of) the *theory*. The theory does not provide that! No theory---
 not Newton's, not Einstein's, and not QM, can do that, can explain
 *itself*.

 [GK]
 Not exactly, and I have not expressed such demands of QM in any
 of my statements. What I stated, and you have not denied that yet,
 is that QM does not give me or you a picture (much less an explanation)
 of the world as we know it, with somewhat reliable objects placed at
 definite position at definite times. This is a fact, not a demand on
 my part on the theory. Most people who feel unhappy about this
  state-of-affairs don't blame it on the theory (as they did 3
generations
 ago) but blame it on themselves or on us, humans, who have not
 interpreted the theory correctly yet.


> From Bruno's message I take it that you subscribe to the
> Everett Interpretation which indeed "avoids" some of these
> problems but has some more of its own and
> surely does a number on your "naive reality"!
> What is it then: many worlds or one?

 Many worlds of course. Have you or have you not read "Fabric
 of Reality" by David Deutsch?

 [GK]
 Oh yes. But I am not a convert.

 [LC]
 As for a number on my "naive reality"... For Christ's sake,
 I give up with you. You are hopeless. You are probably one
 of those people who calls "fascist" everyone who has political
 disagreements with you, whether or not they themselves adopt
 the term.

 [GK]
 (...I'll pass on this one!)

 [LC]
 I give up. I hereby grant permission for the incredible
 Godfrey Kurt Lee to call me a "naive realist" --- but him
 only! Nobody else better try it!

 Lee

 [GK]
 Wow!! Actually my name is Godfrey Kurtz. Lee is a bad nickname
 that I had to use to get a username from AOL. No pun intended.
 (I hesitate to call you anything, at this stage! )


 P.S. I will reply to the rest of your post when I am less
 exercised :-)

 [GK]
 Now that Bruno promoted me to a machine I feel like telling
 you, like good all HAL 5000: "Why don't you take a pill and
 lay down?" (:-)

 Get well soon,

 Godfrey

________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Sun Aug 21 2005 - 16:46:13 PDT