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

science = determinism? (Schrodinger: algorithm or phenomena?)

Don Tveter drt at christianliving.net
Tue Nov 30 12:39:59 EST 1999

Maynard Handley wrote:
> In article <81omtn$f9e at web.nmti.com>, peter at abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> >In article <383FAD5A.5DA023B4 at earthlink.net>,
> >kenneth Collins  <kpaulc at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> they are engineered with the a priori presumption of 'particles', so
> they 'see
> >> particles', when everything is continuous.
> >
> >You know, Einstein's Nobel Prize was for explaining an experiment that saw
> >particles when everyone assumed everything was continuous. If you can come
> >up with a better explanation of the photoelectric effect, or with some kind
> >of experiment that would differentiate your energy soup universe from the
> >one everyone else works with, you might be able to get somewhere.
> I'm happily ignoring most of the crap in this thread, but I'd like to
> clarify this because this misunderstanding is one of the reasons people
> get so bent out of shape about QM.
> (1) There are no particles, only fields. There is an EM field, an electron
> field etc.

I'm not sure but I think that may be OK to say in the Bohr/Copenhagen
interpretation.  But there are lots of interpretations floating around.
The one Jack Sarfatti likes (and I do too, but my likings count for
nothing) is the Bohm interpretation where there are genuine particles
going around and there is a quantum force acting on them.  Bohm got
this by splitting the Schroedinger equation into two parts.


        The Pattern Recognition Basis of Artificial Intelligence
Backpropagator's Review                     NN freeware for UNIX and PCs
                A Professional BP Version for X and W95
Don Tveter        drt at christianliving.net       http://www.dontveter.com

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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