From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Quantum vampires
Summary: drehk
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:14:37 GMT


Somebody else writes (sorry, the newsreader didn't want to let me
do a 'followup' to the article)

>Okay, you s.s regulars. I'm sort of a skeptic by association, but I'd like
>to think that I know a bad argument when I see one. The trouble is, I'm
>a bad debater when the topic crosses over to quantum physics.

	QM is an intuitively difficult subject to understand; that way it
easily lends itself to many misuses by the ignorant.

>Basically, while you people have been debating real things such as John's
>Astral Trains, deep in the pits of the alt.morass, a bunch of odd folks have
>started making posts claiming that vampires can be proven through quantum
>physics.

>They're also making a bunch of other things, like ad hominem (sp. ??)
>arguments, circular silliness, and so on, but those I can handle. I'd like
>help, being that I appear to be the only vampire-fiction fan who's willing
>to try and get some sensible discussion on the newsgroup.

>thanks for any help. Here's the article, yanked right out of it's comfy
>home in my newsreader:

|>From: tarrall@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Pavaroti the Clown)
|>Newsgroups: alt.vampyres
|>Subject: Re: truth ( virtual vampyres same as photons and gravitons???)
|>Message-ID: <1992Oct6.023942.23385@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
|>Date: 6 Oct 92 02:39:42 GMT
|>Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
|>Lines: 71

irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:

|>In article <JBW.92Oct3191229@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe
|>Wells) writes:
|>>In article <6_lzccf@rpi.edu> battlec@cs.rpi.edu writes:
|>>
|>>   The only reliable source of truth is the real world around us.
|>>
|>>Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

....deleted

>Also, on the same note, would reality be derived from the world or
>out PERCEPTION of the world?

>For instance, if we were to percieve that vampires exist, then would
>they?
>(Yes, I know its a bit esoteric, but still a legit. question)

Ahhhh I noticed a few lovers of the sciences out there so maybe you
can drink this up...
Acording to a few widely acceped physical theories, based only
on the assumption that speed of light is a constant, and that
it is possible to make statements of truth about how the universe
works, basically that it is possible to predict events.  We can derive
a form of logic that works in the following manner.  Of all
the events which you can see or are able to observe (more apropriately)
none of them is communicated to us without some medium of transfer,
for example in many cases light or sound, all information must come to
you via these routes.  Furthermore everything you see is
'filtered' through your cognitive perception, i.e you think you see
it and you interperet (sp?) it.  I don't have a great deal of trouble
accepting these statements as the truth.

Now if you believe these things you are accepting a few other things
as true as well.  One, you accept as fact the following, before a sound
or light(this list goes on and on,also gravity etc..) signal
gets to you it could possiblly be altered in ways you
have no way of predicting, for example a vampyre may be able to
bend light around himself in such a way as to not be seen in mirrors
or not easily precieved by those observers he does not wish to be seen by.

** >
	Yes, but HOW DOES HE ALTER IT?  You are saying that, if a vampire
can make himself invisible, we won't see him.  No shit?  But HOW DOES HE
DO IT?  There is really no physical mechanism that would allow for this to
happen.
** <

This may seem far fetched if you are a classical physicist, however 
it is more than possible, check quantum mechanics, light does not
travel in straight paths, it just 'probably does'.  Also this could
be acomplished by moving very rapidly, esp. since most physicists believe
in virtual gravitons, and photons, which only are able to exist be-
cause they move 'faster' than quantum uncertainty, or just maybe faster
than your perception (ok so virtual vamps are as far fetched as photons,
but you do see light don't you.  You wouldn't were it not for very special
circumstances.  Besides it is probably more the later than the former.).  

** >
	Say WHAT?  This is a bunch of meaningless technobabble and random
words stolen from an undergraduate physics text, I think.  Sounds like an
old creationist arguement: 'since you BELIEVE in virtual particles, you
can BELIEVE in an invsible vampires'.
** <

Further anything you 'see' (observe) will
then be filtered through your own personal cognitive perceptions
which could include any number of fallacies (which because they
are fallicies relative to you are a true as my fallacies) includeing
disblief in vampyres to the point of not being able to see them.  Also
many other things that you believe to be true would only then exist
in your possible universe not in mine nessicarily.

** >
	More BS.  If you don't BELIEVE it, it isn't there.  An idea which 
puts science back into the neolithic age, I believe..
** <

Go read up about worm holes and such, but remember that Quantum
mechanics proves that the universe is entirely SUBJECTIVE.  Anything
I believe is in fact true and you can't even think about changing that
one.

** >
	Oh, so this was a joke.  Guess I didn't see the smiley.  Tell you
what, you stand in the middle of the street with your eyes close while I
head toward you at 50 mph in my car.  If it's all subjective, then you should
just disbelieve in the danger and you will live.
	Universe is subjective?  No.  The laws of QM are very objective.
** <

Also a physics major>-- I only drink blood in my spare time.

** >
	Do it full time.  You're not doing very well as a physicist.
** <


-DQ
God save the Queen, God bless us all.


*******
>Me again, the poster of this thing. I'm sure that I've seen a nice way
>to show that "quantum mechanics proves that the universe is entirely
>subjective" argument to be silly on this group somewhere. What is it?
>Is there anything else I should be pointing out to this chap?

	Think about it.  Are the laws of QM subjective?

>Email is fine, posting here in sci.skeptic is fine, and, if you want to
>see the stuff for yourself, come join the (one-sided) fun in alt.vampyres.
>I'd appreciate the help!

"Bite me." -- David Letterman
-- 
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club - CTHULHU in '92! Why vote for LESSER evils?

Ben
Cmdr. Cthulhu
"I liked him better when he was dead"  McCoy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011