Fw: Re. EMT - Science Or Pseudo-Science?
- ...with his epistemological pants down!Gunnar----- Original Message -----From: Gunnar TomassonTo: Paul DavidsonSent: Friday, June 09, 2000 4:39 PMSubject: 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