84350

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:121534 alt.atheism:54158 talk.religion.misc:84350
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wri!elvis.wri.com!markp
From: [e-mail] (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: elvis.wri.com
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
References: <1qgouk$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:57:09 GMT
Lines: 36

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> mathew <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree.
>>
>>Simple.  Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which
>>say that there is no objective physics.  I doubt you will find any.  You might
>>find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location,
>>but no objective _physics_?  (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in-
>>vacuum is invariant.  This sounds an awful lot like an objective
>>speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)

>Or, you can try not confuse a construct with the constructor.  If you take
>a look at Quantum Mechanics, many objective observations can be made
>as well.  However, Physics is not objective.  Bohr said the randomness
>of atomic motion is inherent in the motion itself.  Einstein said that 
>nature is deterministic; it is our method of observation that inserts the
>randomness.  They were talking about the exact same results.

But neither of them claimed to have experimental evidence that proved 
them right. In a similar vein, there is as yet no experimental evidence
for supersymmetric particles; so some physicists believe in them, and
some don't -- but all agree that either there is an objectively true
answer to the question.

>Depends on how you look at it, I guess.
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental