>Pat -"say"? Well, the answer can only be given using
>I am working on a deadline so can only pay
>cursory attention however - I find many points
>you mention worthy
>of digging deeper for learning purposes,
>considering you may have some knowledge there
> There is only one actual
>scientific theory of quantum theory (actually
>quantum electrodynamics, aka QED). That theory is
>embodied in the mathematical equations from which
>the empirically validated predictions can be
>And what does it say exactly?
mathematics, and I am not competent to do a good
job of explaining it.
I have been trying to understand, ie make
>or better, what do you make of it?
something of, QED since I first heard about the
two-slit experiment when I was an undergraduate.
I am still trying. The transactional
interpretation is the most intuitive Ive seen so
far. There are several on-line accounts of it
which you can access through Google.
I don't know how to answer that question. QED
>That is, what 'laws' and principles do we infer from QED
consists of laws and principles. There are many
textbooks which try to explain the ideas in
reasonably intuitive terms, but the fact is that
QED is highly unintuitive, no matter how you
express it. The real world, it seems, is not at
all like the world which appears to our senses.
It underlies, and is the foundation of, virtually
>and what impact/implications does the scientific
>theory of QED have on the rest of the scientific body of knowledge?
all of physical science. It is the only theory
which can explain how atoms are possible, for
example, and can account for radioactivity and
nuclear fusion (which makes the stars work) as
well as many chemical and other physical
phenomena. You may have read that solid things
are mostly empty space; QED explains why they
'feel' solid, why they cannot interpenetrate each
No. Quantum logic is a separate topic altogether,
>To repeat: there is
>(so far) one theory of QED, but many
>Correct me if I am wrong: you are saying here
>that there is no such thing as 'quantum logic',
>but only 'quantum mathematics'?
irrelevant to this discussion.
Sorry, to elaborate on quantum theory is beyond
me, and in any case isn't relevant to this forum.
>The oldest one, which has found
>its way into many written works, is the
>Copenhagen interpretation. For many years it was
>the only one, so came to be identified with QED:
>but now there are others. And some of these
>others do not mention state superposition and
>quantum wave-function collapse. So, to return for
>a second to psychology: any account of, say,
>consciousness, which uses the collapse of the
>wave function as part of its explanatory
>apparatus (as Stapp's does) is not based on QED,
>the actual science, but only on the Copenhagen
>interpretation of QED, which isn't really
>anything more scientific than a parable.
>>On Dec 9, 2007 8:31 AM, Christopher Menzel
> ><mailto:<mailto:paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx>paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx ><mailto:
>>> In this account, there is no 'collapse', so its a hard stretch to
>>> posit that consciousness causes or results from it.
>>> luckily we can all have our favourite choice of science to justify
>>> our views of the world
>>So, let's see, we have our worldview and then we choose the science
>>that fits. Great! I choose Young Earth Creationism. Man, that was
>>Paola Di Maio
>>School of IT
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
>Paola Di Maio
>School of IT
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell