From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:45 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <martel.727705022@marvin>, martel@marvin.mr.sintef.no (Paulo Martel) writes...
> 
>Chip, I don't want to start an argument again. But the discussion started
>because of Scott Chase's statement: "There is *real* randomness". I went
>on to criticize the matter-of-factness of such a statement, saying that one
>has no means to prove such a thing (not the least because, as you say, we
>don't have a defintion of real randomness). All I was trying to say is that
>the existence of "hidden variables" or an underlying mechanism cannot be 
>discarded at this point, altough it has some unpleasant implications. Scott
>argued against the existence of such a mechanism, in favour of a *real* 
>randomness in quantum mechanical phenomena. So maybe you should ask Scott for
>a definition of real randomness instead of me, since he is so sure that such
>a thing exists.

Let's set the record straight.  Someone in a.s.p.new-theories asked if
radioactive decay and other like phenomena were really random or if they
were determinate, with the appearance of randomness.  I answered that
there is *real* randomness.  That means that so far as we know, with
no evidence to the contrary, QM is correct, and it predicts real
randomness in such processes.  I stand by that statement.  I do not think
that the original poster wanted your philosophical opinion.  He wanted 
our best answer according to science.

Furthermore, I claim, with good cause I think, that your contentions *do*
constitute wild speculation, i.e., they are not founded in any way on 
either experiment (since no experiments are widely recognized to constitute
evidence, or even a suggestion, that QM may not be always correct) or theory.
All you have going for yourself is your philosophy.  But Nature is not
constrained to comply with your, my, or anyone else's philosophy.  There is
a large difference between theoretical speculation, i.e., attempts to 
produce new testable models, and philosophical speculation.

It is all too easy to pretend to sophistication by wild speculation.
You claim that real randomness may not exist.  Fine.  Now what?  How
do you proceed with this in any scientific fashion.  I do not object
to testing the limits of our knowledge.  I know, however, until you
get past the general "accusations", along the lines of QM must be wrong 
because I don't like it, and proceed to defining clear alternatives with
testable distinctions from QM, you will get nowhere, and all of your
attestations to the contrary are just hot air.

Studing the philosophy of QM might in fact lead you to such alternatives,
and for this reason it is worth pursuing.  But I see no evidence that
you take your so-called philosophy past the point of simply taking a 
contrarian stand on intrinsic randomness.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas