Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: ..cat



>I fail to see how epistemology is not philosophy.  What is it then?  Certainly
>it is not physics; psychology has at least as much to do with it, as does
>logic--and no one denies that logic is a part of philosphy; logic was the one
>part of philosophy retained by Karnap, the arch-positivist.

Not the point. The point is that saying it is does not address my argument.


>hy can we not know both position and momentum?  My understanding is that this
>conclusion depends on more basic scientific theories about the nature of
>matter
>and light, i.e., the wave nature of light prevents us from knowing the exact
>position or momentum of a particle.  The uncertainty principle is thus a
>physical phenomenon, and not a limitation on epistemological ability.  Your
>claim is the same as claiming that our inability to know whether Schrodinger's
>cat is alive or dead is epistemological, not physical.  Please correct me if I
>am wrong, but I believe that our inability to know both position and
>momentum is
>a lack of information (in this case a physical inability to secure the needed
>information) and not an epistemological constraint.  We are faced not with a
>"limit of the knowledge we can have about a particle," but with a limit on the
>information that we can have about a particle.  Limits on information are
>decidedly not the realm of epistemology.  I thus fail to see the
>epistemological
>consequences of QM to which you constantly refer.

No. It's amazing how much is said about the uncertainty principle without
anyone understanding it (not a crack at you, just a general statement). It
is a fundamental inability, i.e. no force using any conceivable process can
get a better knowledge of the position and momentum than dictated by the
uncertainty principle. It is not an admission that scientists aren't very
smart or that our equipment isn't good enough. It is a statement about the
fundamental impossibility of breaking said knowledge barrier. If this isn't
epistemology, what is?

Statistical mechanics is a theory where we deal with a lack of information
and get a probabilistic description of matter. Quantum mechanics is
different in that the lack of knowability is a fundamental part of the
theory, not merely an attempt to do the best we can with what we have. And
yes, this is verifiable, although it might not seem that way to most
people.

>"You have said nothing against this, merely trying to invoke professional
>privilege."
>
>Much as you did previously.  I hope that this meets your standard for a reply.

Jeff, you are looking at this awfully superficially. Anyway, the point of
what I said was that you didn't know quantum mechanics, therefore you
shouldn't be so glib about it, not that you don't call yourself a physicist
or have a degree in physics.

Rahul




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---