Re: A question of semantics

Christian Thalmann scripsit:

> On the other hand, many people have trouble with applying or
> manipulating non-trivial probabilites, e.g. "if one test has
> a probability of 25% for outcome A, then the probability to
> get an outcome A in four tests is 100%".  ;-)
This is called the gambler's fallacy.  Another example is the couple
who stopped after three children, because they heard that one out of
four children born is Chinese.

> I think it
> would help the learning curve if teachers were clearer about
> the fact that an observation will not only yield an eigen-
> value of the observable's operator, but actually snap the
> wave function into the corresponding eigenstate.
That's one interpretation, but surely not free of problems.

An interesting article on quantum physics for computer geeks:
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0207118 .

The author's commentary (restates some of the above paper more
tersely):  http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0305088 .
particular, it makes physics a branch of consciousness research.

--
"We are lost, lost.  No name, no business, no Precious, nothing.  Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry.  A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death.  So wise they are; so just,
so very just."  --Gollum        jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan