Author: Nicholas Cooper
Date: 19:58:48 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 17:13:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 12, 2004 at 17:06:29, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On February 12, 2004 at 17:01:47, F. Huber wrote: >> >>>And Quantum Physics tells us, that not even ´truth´ exists - >>>at least not a ´single and unique´ one! :-( >> >>But if truth is higher than math, then wouldn't it also be higher than quantum >>physics? If we define truth to be higher than math, and by math we prove that >>there is no truth, does that mean there is no truth, or that math, which is >>lower than truth, is fallible? > >The thing that quantum physics tells us is (again) about knowing. > >Considering the example of Schrodinger's cat, we must consider the cat as >simultaneously dead and alive. It is a wave function to describe it. Or >consider a particle. Is it a particle or a wave or both? > >Quantum physics is a model to describe this sort of thing rigorously. But like >the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it shows us that knowing some things is >beyond our reach. > >I don't think that alters what reality means behind the scenes. It just shows >that there are strict limits on what we can know. Dann, with all due respect, my understanding is that quantum mechanics states that (for example) an electron doesn't have a definate position in space, not merely that we can't measure it (as the latter would imply that we just need better instruments to measure it). Though of course quantum mechanics is only the best description we have of such phenomena and therefore is only an approximation to reality, so I guess we end up agreeing in the end! :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.