Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 02:06:52 +0100
Gene, Dough, and LS, on Bohr and MoQ.
Thanks for the quote from Bohr, Gene, I agree.
Dough, as for myself, Quantum Mechanics, and the philosophical questions
that had to be handled in establishing QM as a science, has played an
important role in my journey into the unknowns of Metaphysics of Quality.
And especially Bohrs writings.
In 1938 Bohr suggested that the word *phenomenon* 'was used solely to refer
to observations obtained under specified circumstances, including an
account of the entire experimental setup'. And this is at the root of his
ideas on complementarity. Because Bohr was talking of the very essentials
of physics, this was in sharp opposition with the traditional objectivist
view of physics, an opposition which could not be ignored.
Hence all the fuzz about the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, which stated,
from an explicit objectivist stance, that QM was not a complete description
of physical nature. And Bohrs answer to that paper was never really
understood in the general society of physicists, not even today. The way I
read Bohrs answer, he stated that the problem was in the objectivist view
and not in QM, but unfortunately he did not express it very clearly. (If
anyone is interested, I can try to give my reading of these papers in more
detail.)
Nevertheless the EPR-paper and Bohrs answer was later to become confronted
in an actual experiment, the experiment performed by Aspect and others back
in the eighties. In my eyes this experiment decides the matter (as always -
in a conjectural manner) in favour of Bohr, *and* in favour of a MoQ-like
metaphysics. So if someone might wonder why QM keeps popping up on the
list, there are good reasons for this, because in QM MoQ confronts the
objectivist metaphysics face to face, - and it looks like MoQ is ahead on
points (though we should be cautious due to the distance from theory to
experiment, - as Bodvar wrote recently: "Phaedrus of ZMM found that there
are an unlimited number of
theories that fit ANY observation").
I find these QM issues important, because if we can establish the misfit of
SOM here in the heart of physics, and show how a MoQ might remedy the
situation, then SOM has lost a great deal of its immune system.
Hugo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST