X-Message-Number: 20917
From: 
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:52:21 EST
Subject: implicit assumptions

--part1_4f.29f6a0b7.2b5c15a5_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Michael Price writes in part:

> If [two particles interfere with each other] they are identical and
> therefore must be of the same colour.  If they don't they're not identical
> and so may differ in colour.  It's not a matter of imposing definitions or
> over-asserting, it is simply a matter of (modern) physics.  

Sorry again--it's rather a matter of assuming that modern physics, or your 
interpretation of it, is the last word; and also of claiming the dictionary 
prerogative.

First, once more, on language: To assert that an electron here is the "same" 
as an electron there is simply to make up your own definitions of what 
"sameness" means. In ordinary language, something that is elsewhere cannot be 
the "same," unless you carefully qualify this by saying "the same except for 
location, at least." One CAN distinguish between an electron here and an 
electron there. Of course you are free to claim that your definition is 
better, but that is just language or psychology, not physics.

Second, once more, on hidden variables. It is NOT true that hidden variables, 
such as internal complexity of particles, or modifications of forces, are 
ruled out by quantum theory. What is ruled out are hidden variables that 
would affect certain types of experiments.

Example. Men and women have similar opinions on subjects in category A, but 
tend to have measurably different opinions on subjects in category B. 
Therefore, after polling of a large enough sample for a certain question, 
restricting the poll to either men or women, someone who didn't know the 
question could confidently assert whether it was in category A or B. In other 
words, men and women are the SAME--by criterion A, but they are not the same 
by criterion B. If you are unaware of the existence of B, you might be 
tempted to say that men and women are (psychologically) alike, period. You 
would be wrong.

Robert Ettinger

--part1_4f.29f6a0b7.2b5c15a5_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20917