X-Message-Number: 15014
From: "Pat Clancy" <>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:04:55 -0800
Subject: Re: Clancy, chronons, metrons

Robert Ettinger wrote:

> But the main point I want to make right now, once more, is that "Quantum 
> Theory" (including its interpretation) is VERY FAR from being well 
> established. Anyone who makes the least attempt to keep up with the 

> literature knows that these issues have been boiling for over a century, with 
> sign of abatement--in fact, increasing confusion and disagreement. 

I presume you mean it's the "interpretation" that is in dispute, since quantum 

theory itself is universally accepted by physicists as being correct. I believe
it's been verified to more decimal places than anything else in physics. It's 
the issue of whether it's a "complete" theory that is the subject of endless 
debate - Copenhagen vs. many-worlds vs. hidden variables and all that stuff. 
This would make as good an off-topic subject for a cryonics mailing list as 
Turing machines/AI and the identity of duplicates - but I certainly wouldn't 
want to be blamed for helping to perpetuate anything like that :-) Actually, 
come to think of it, QM probably is more relevant to cryonics than those 
other topics. For one thing, QM specifies a limit to the precision of 
measurements of complementary attributes, so a nano-technology that 
attempts to, say, plot the exact structure of a cryo-preserved brain will have 
to contend with that limit. For another, QM decrees that there will be an 
unavoidable amount of "decay", or random changes, over time, no matter 
how close to absolute zero the temperature.

Pat Clancy

Pat Clancy

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15014