File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0309, message 330


From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:46:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Quantum uncertainty


In a message dated 23/09/2003 15:21:01 GMT Daylight Time, crifasi-AT-hotmail.com 
writes:


> Subj:Quantum uncertainty
> Date:23/09/2003 15:21:01 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    crifasi-AT-hotmail.com (Anthony Crifasi)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU">heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jud wrote:
> 
> >Anthony Writes:
> >The anomaly of the double slit experiment SPECIFICALLY cannot be explained 
> >in
> >terms of some effect of our observation, again because a scientist can 
> >leave
> >the room, turn the cameras off, go to lunch, and upon returning the 
> >scientist
> >will find exactly the same impact marks as if the experiment were carefully
> >watched the whole time.
> >
> >Jud:
> >This is because the scientist has ALREADY affected the nature of the 
> >electron
> >particle/electron wave BEFORE he went to lunch.
> 
> The scientist can do exactly the same thing before he goes to lunch, leaving 
> the slit to randomly open and close by itself. So the actions of the 
> scientist before he goes to lunch would be no different either way. And yet 
> the electron behaves differently depending only on whether the second slit 
> opens (randomly) or closes.


Jud:
He doesn't  just 'leave' the slit to randomly open and close by 'itself' - he 
interferes
with the automatic mechanism in such a way that it randomly opens and closes 
by itself
in accordance with his wishes so affecting  the nature of the  electron 
particle/electron wave 
BEFORE he went to lunch.

> 
> >Secondly you are confusing
> >the observational methodology. In these kinds of experiments it is not 
> >necessary
> >for the human observer to be present when the recordings of the 
> >particle/wave
> >functions are being made. In the same way, most astronomers don't sit up 
> >all
> >night gazing heavenwards but analyse the photographic and computerised 
> >records
> >made automatically by the telescope the night before. It is not the fact 
> >the
> >Heisenberg himself and his white-coated assistants were hovering about near
> >the equipment  breathing liquor fumes, which affected the experiments, but 
> >the
> >constrictions placed on the existential modalities of the particles by 
> >being
> >forced from the narrow  'barrel' of the electron gun.
> 
> But the narrow barrel of the electron gun doesn't change when the second 
> slit is suddenly opened, so whatever supposedly "makes" the electron change 
> its behavior can't have anything to do with the gun itself.


Jud:
Of course it does - the narrow 'barrel' of the electron gun is gaining and 
losing particles
with every nano-second that passes, and [strictly speaking] is not the exact, 
same electron gun that 
fires the first 'shots.' As an ex soldier I know that my rifle performed 
differently from shot to shot as the barrel changed 
temerature - we were instructed to adjust our sights accordingly. Also the 
constrictions/restrictions on the electron by
constraining it to to the a particular existential relative spatial 
positionality [the barrel of an electron gun] is BOUND to affect it
just as if I bundled you into a cardboard box.
> 
> >Jud:
> >This placement of the two slits constitutes an INTERFERENCE with the normal
> >or natural entitic mode of the electron which changes its nature to that of 
> >an
> >unpredictable wave form  'unpredictable' that is from a HUMAN perspective> >In a similar way, if I placed two human-size slits in front of you, and you
> >were forced to walk through one of them, it would be an infringement upon 
> >your
> >freedom to walk where you wished, which would impinge upon your normal 
> >walking
> >gait and cause you to change your modality and shape in order to squeeze
> >through one of the  two confined spaces.
> 
> Yes but those changes in my behavior are caused by my conscious perception 
> of whether I am going to be restricted. For example, I adjust my gait 
> depending on whether I see that my path is restricted. So unless an electron 
> has conscious perception of whether it is going to be restricted in its 
> path, then this analogy to human action cannot adequately explain its change 
> in behavior depending on whether one or two slits are open.

Jud:
You would need to do the same even if you were blind and couldn't see the 
human-size slits before you
you would knock into them, feel them , and pass through them if your progress 
was imperative.
Anyway in the above I said if you were FORCED to pass through them. It is 
true that if the choice was yours you could simply refuse to walk through one of 
them or look for another way round.
As I see it the affect of the human interference of  opening or arranging for 
the mechanical opening of the second slit has an affect on the electron
of creating an existential circumstance whereby it is impossible for a human 
being to ascertain which of the two slits the electron/wave
will pass through.  It could be for many reasons, some kind of 'feed-back' as 
the result of  a change of  the environment within the firing chamber caused 
be the different spatial configuration caused by the opening of  number 2 
slit?   But whatever it turns out to be, this does not bespeak of the 
electron/wave having some property of metaphysical indecision or behavioural 
coquettishness, but simply that until now we haven't been able to figure out why the 
electron/wave behaves in this fashion. As far as I can see that is all that 
Heisenberg himself was saying?  All Heisenberg was saying really was: Funny the way it 
does that — wonder why?

We are still wondering why.  When the answer comes it will I am sure be a 
perfectly understandable physical one, and nothing remotely connected 
to God or metaphysics.



Cheers,

Jud.

<A HREF="http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ ">http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/</A> 
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
<A HREF="http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com">http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com</A>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005