RE: virus: Quantum TT

Schneider John (
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 03:08:37 -0500

David Leeper wrote:
> Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> >
> > David Leeper wrote:
> > >Quantum Mechanics shows that even the speed of
> > >light is not absolute.
> >
> > How?
> Uncertainty Principle (or Feynman's "Arrows", if you prefer).

The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with the speed of
light. However, quantum mechanics does attack the speed of light
by insisting that the collapse of the wavefunction occurs instant-
aneously over all space. Because of this, a two particles shot
away from one another, both governed by the same wavefunction, will
seem to be 'connected' in a way that defies the speed of light:
Measuring one will collapse the wavefunction, ensuring that a
measurement of the other will yield a particular result, which
might not have been the result earlier. Since the measurements
can take place in such a way that no sub-luminal signal could
travel from one particle to the other, we conclude that, if any-
thing, the wavefunction occurs faster than the speed light. The
assumption now is that the collapse occurs everywhere instantane-
ously. (This has been tested experimentally.)

Now, unfortunately, it is impossible to use this in any meaningful
way. We cannot send signals with it or anything.... BUT! We've
been asking the question: do things happen even if I cease to exist?
I would suggest the answer is "yes". Cosmologically, folks like
Hawking are trying to write down the 'wavefunction of the universe';
if in fact, the universe did in a big bang, and is governed by one
magnificent function, then "quantum connections", however minute,
exist between us and the universe. In this sense, the cessation
of me and all things connected to me would require the cessation
of the universe. (Therefore, I am God, etc....)

Also, since I have been admonished by Tad:
> [clip]
> Done. Next time help yourself -- it's a self-served board.
> BTW: your mind obviously operates in the "who" and not in
> the "what" mode.
> [clip]
... I figured I had better my 'what' version of TT, but I doubt if
I can succeed too well:
The concept of TT is a meme. It happens to be a useless meme for
me, personally, so, I will not bother to waste my time with it.
Now, if TT exists regardless of the fact that the meme relating to
it happens to be useless to me, it makes no difference: the concept
of TT is useless to me. (Not unlike the concept of God, who may or
may not exist regardless of his usefulness.)

| ... towards a crisper definition of |
| the boundaries of ignorance ... |
| JPSchneider |
| |