Re: Fuzzy Quantum Mechanics?

Stephen Paul King (msking1@ix.netcom.com)
Wed, 17 Jul 1996 17:10:08 +0200


In <31E80B9F.2647@concentric.net> John Fritz <jfutures@concentric.net>
writes:
>
>Stephen Paul King wrote:

>> 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

Hi John,

I agree completely with you. I do not have the mathematical training
for such a task, but I do "understand" quantum mechanics. I am just
wondering, like R. Shafer, if anyone "qualified" has made an attempt.
And by the way, exactly what do we mean by "understand?"

Sincerly,

Stephen Paul King