IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

science = determinism?

Frank Buckler fb at m2.ifb.uni-hannover.de
Mon Nov 29 05:54:31 EST 1999

Your arguments are strong, and because I'm not a specialist in QM, I cant
figure out if there is a hole in the assumtions (like the assumtion "we can
messure correctly")

But on the other hand all this is not my point! I don't speak about how the
reality is, I speak about how should we aproach to scientific problems. The
starting point was the psychology, and that also in this scientific region,
it is nessessary to assume determinism. Because:
"Random is that we cant know in advance". If a researcher say at a given
point: I cant know in advance: He say: I cant explain and predict. Theres no
reason anymore for research in that particular field. The way out of this
dilemma is to proof that there cant no determination.
The proofs in QM you've discriped could only be done due to the search for

Frank Buckler

Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
ey3wvr67gax.fsf at lostwithiel.tfeb.org...
> * Frank Buckler wrote:
> > If we find somthing random: we can say: "it is random" or "it apeers to
> > random, because we dont know enoupg"
> > Both is induction reasoning, and both can be equaly true or false.
> > But the first is the end of research!
> Not at all.  For the results of observations in QM the standard story
> is `it is random' -- or rather `all you can know in advance are the
> probabilities of the various outcomes'.  And you can investigate this
> a whole lot -- for instance you can hypothesise that no, it's not
> random, but there is some `hidden variable' which determines the
> outcome of the experiment.  And when you look at that hypothesis you
> find it doesn't make sense because the hidden variables must be
> `non-local' which basically means `causality violating'.  And you can
> do experiments & theoretical work which explore this whole area, like
> the experiments done by Alain Aspect in the 80s and the theory stuff
> by Bell somewhat earlier (60s?).
> So it is absolutely not the case that science must be
> deterministic. Anyone who thinks that hasn't paid a lot of attention
> to the progress in physics over the last 100 years or so.
> --tim

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net