----- Original Message -----

**Sent:** Friday, June 09, 2000 4:39 PM

**Subject:** Re. EMT - Science Or Pseudo-Science?

Dear Paul:

Thanks for your response.

Let me comment briefly on three points therein.

__First__. "For the
most part we do not disagree but you still seem trapped in the 1930s-1950s
methodological mode of thinking in physics and elsewhere -- before the ergodic
analysis was developed and widely disseminated in the English
language. Ergodicity

concept was started by the Moscow School of
Probability in 1935 -- but you probably had to read Russian to learn much
about it even in to the 1960s. Herman Wold was one of the first to write
about it in English in a widely distributed book BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TIME
SERIES AND STOCHASTIC PROCESS Cambridge Univ. Press 1965."

If I understand it correctly, the concept of
"ergodicity" is short-hand for the __unchanging__ attributes of Nature's
forms and functions of which Newton wrote in *Principia *(Book Three -
'The System Of The World In Mathematical Treatment') as follows:

"*The qualities of bodies, which admit
neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong
to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the
universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.*" (*Rules of Reasoning in
Philosopy, *RULE III.)

__Second__. "Physicists now
recognize that quantum mechanics requires the axiom of ergodicity"

And they always did - the very construction
of QM as a rigorously axiomatic structure was predicated on the Newtonian "axiom
of ergodicity".

__Third__.
"What data would you need to falsify QM?? Can you realistically expect to
find such data? What data do you need to falsify EMT. Do we ever
find any other data but that which falsifies EMT?"

I rate the chance that QM will be
'falsified' by new data as the inverse of the chance that EMT will not
continue to be so 'falsified'.

Gunnar