Re: Fuzzy Quantum Mechanics?

John Fritz (jfutures@concentric.net)
Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:35:39 +0200


Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> In <4s3t3l$a90@bigjohn.bmi.net> rshafer@news.bmi.net (Robert Shafer)
> writes:
> >
> >This is a question that came up for me a while back that I have
> >pretty much no idea how to answer. I just joined this newsgroup
> >a day or two ago and the probability vs. fuzzy discussion reminded
> >me of the question.
> >
> >That is, has anyone considered restating quantum physics using fuzzy
> >semantics? I don't have a clue what such a restatement would "sound"
> >like, or if it even makes sense to try. Anyone else have any idea?
> >
> >-Bob
> Hi,
>
> B. Kosko, in his usual manner, alludes to the idea of restating Q.M. in
> his book Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems. I am VERY interested in
> this idea but have not been able to find any follow up on it. It could
> be that any attempt to publish a paper on Fuzzy Q.M. would generate a
> flame attack of Armagedonic proportions by the traditional physicists.
>
> Is there anyone brave enough to attempt this challenge?!
>
> Stephen Paul King

Often the flaming is justified when someone who really doesn't
understand quantum mechanics tries to use it in bizzare or inappropriate
ways. This just spreads misinformation and gives more weight to the
terrible discussion, since other people who don't understand quantum
mechanics may say, "Gee, this is supported by really high level
physics". (Like someone who "proves" the existence of God using
physics. I have heard at least one discussion.)

John Fritz, Ph. D in physics