[OT] "Pre-announcement" of Python-based "computing appliance"project.

Stephen Waterbury golux at comcast.net
Sun Sep 26 07:36:23 CEST 2004

Richard Hanson wrote:
> Stephen Waterbury wrote:
>>[...] QM may be the ultimate framework
>>for an observer/observable-based theory of physics, 
> But, but... How can *QM* be the ultimate framework? -- it doesn't
> include gravity (GR).

Touche!  OK, modulo superstrings.  :)

>>and since
>>the observer/observable paradigm is fundamental to science,
> Are you sure about that? ;-)

Well, at least until someone shows me how to do an experiment
without observing something.

> Likewise, in QM it seems that a robot taking measurements is
> sufficient to "collapse the wave function." Of course, you could also
> argue that robots are people, too. ;-)

Perhaps, but even if not, they're definitely "observers".  ;)

> To slightly paraphrase Richard Feynman, no one even understands
> *quantum mechanics*. :-)

Still true.  With the possible exception of those in sahaj
samadhi (for some definition of "understands" ;).

>>Of course, if you want to transcend observer/observable, you
>>have to go beyond science, and into the realm of "Cosmajoonity"
>>(see Freeman Dyson's delightful book "Disturbing the Universe" :).
> Ultimately, many things may not be knowable in principle. How can
> "all" be knowable to humans who are part of the very "system" being
> considered, i.e., the cosmos? :-)

Well, that's where the Cosmajoonity comes in -- if you *are* the
system, all you have to do is know yourself!  But I guess that's
what we're working on, anyway.  :)

OK, enough elephant shit from me!  :)


More information about the Python-list mailing list