Re: QM vs. logic (was Re: virus: Fundamentals)

ken sartor (
Fri, 19 Apr 1996 16:59:21 -0500

At 11:46 AM 4/19/96 -0600, David McFadzean wrote:
>At 08:07 PM 01/04/96 MST, Joel Bradford Klammer wrote:
>>Since the advent of QM this line of thought [giving serious consideration
>>to the possibility of contradictions in reality] may have to be taken
>>seriously, or at least not dismissed out of hand.
>What is it about quantum mechanics that would lead you to this conclusion?
>If you are referring to the wave/particle "paradox" isn't that just an
>apparent contradiction? The QM theorists have noted that subatomic objects
>behave like waves sometimes and particles sometimes but you have to
>remember that waves and particles are actually huge collections of these
>same subatomic objects and the fact that the part sometimes behaves like
>the whole in certain respects should not lead us to give up rational

Single elementary quanta exist as waves and/or particles. The outcome
depends wholy on the measurement. This is not a consequence of
any interaction of large numbers of these entities (or even two).

A classic example is the two slit experiment.

However i do not see what this has to do with logic... It only
implies that our approximation of the world as being composed
of discrete things like particles and non-localized things like
waves is, at best, incomplete.

>This is a general request (in part because my mailer strips
>out all header identification except the subject and the fact
>that the message is from the Virus list): Please try to sign
>your messages, and please remember that you're addressing
>a list, not an individual. An unsigned message beginning
>"You wrote" leaves me thinking "no I didn't," and with no
>idea of whether various messages are coming from the
>same person.

ken (is this sufficient?)