From: Richard McGough (richard@biblewheel.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:09:38 EDT
Re post: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0056.html
George wrote:
>There is of course an infinite number of linear combinations of 2 linearly independent vectors & in that sense an infinite number of possible states for an electron when only spin is considered. But there are only two linearly indepndent vectors, & such a system is commonly referred to as "a two state system" by physicists. & as David points out, it is the latter enumeration which is important for purposes of ststistical mechanics.
Yes, the latter enumeration is important for statistical mechanics, but it certainly is not all that is important. I haven't seen an argument against my criticism of Tegmark's work yet.
George wrote:
>That it follows from such considerations that there is an exact replica of each of us somewhere if the universe is large enough seems to me more debatable, especially when one takes into account the time development (both via Schroedinger and the measurement process). So Tegmark's claim is not obviously false but is certainly debatable.
I never said Tegmark's claim for multiple universes was obviously false. I acknowledged the possible validity of his claim in my first post when I said "at best he has some evidence for his hypothesis." My point is that his calculation of a finite number of possible physical configurations in a hubble volume is obviously false.
Of course, David Bowman's point concerning distinguishability is highly significant and must be addressed by Tegmark if he wants to make his case. But I have no interest in doing his work for him. The fact remains that his argument is fatally flawed as it stands. If he want's to resurrect it using real qunatum statitistacal mechanics and a valid model of the physical system, then more power to him. But I don't see why his thesis is worth discussing until then.
George wrote:
>But, you may say, that's just my opinion & you don't have to accept it on my authority as a physicist. You certainly won't if you can dismiss George Ellis. But how are we going to "settle it here" as you put it? You can continue to debate everyone who posts an argument disagreeing with you, & the matter may never be settled to your satisfaction. Peer-review is not infallible but it is one way in which a broad community of scholars in a discipline can indicate that a particular claim is or is not worthy of consideration - which is of course not the same thing as simply true or false. It is one thing to object to the way in which peer-review has dealt with a paper. It's another to refuse submit an idea to such review. Glenn's suggestion was perfectly reasonable and I think you should follow it up.
I didn't reject Ellis' authority as a physicist. I merely questioned him on a single point.
And why can't we settle it here? My point is really quite simple. I am not refusing to submit it to peer-review. Frankly, thats what I thought I was doing here on the ASA list. You've been here for years George. Are you saying that I would be mistaken to consider the members of this list as competent peers able to review my criticism of Tegmark? If so, then exactly what are we doing here?
>Your questions to Glenn, "What is your occupation? Are you an academic?" suggest an appeal to authority which is hardly consistent with your earlier statement about "authority worship." (grace snip)
Come on George, it was nothing of the sort. I merely wanted to know who I was talking to. I would never take offence at anybody asking what I do, why I think what I think, what education I have had, etc. Your attempt to use this to prove some sort of fundamental inconsistency in my character is silly. Have you ever seen me appeal to mere authority to settle any issue? Its not that I wouldn't cite authorities, mind you, I just wouldn't cite them as conclusive in an argument for one simple reason: If I can't argue my point from facts and logic, how can I judge the validity of the authority or my application of his/her claims?
B'Shem Elohi Amen,
Richard
-- Richard Amiel McGough Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 12:15:30 EDT