On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 5:36 AM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
* > Let's review the bidding John. I said the classical world was > necessary to science* > And if that's all you had said we wouldn't be having an argument, but you insisted that classical concepts were also sufficient to do science. You even claimed that an "explanation is in print" that explains why the Quantum Eraser Experiment does what it does and doesn't do what it doesn't do that, as my challenge specified, uses only classical concepts. But you don't say where I can find this revolutionary article that would certainly change physics forever if it actually existed. *> You attempted to counter this by challenging me to explain the quantum > eraser experiment without quantum mechanics* > You seem to have difficulty remembering things I have said and yet you find it very easy to remember things that I did *NOT* say, therefore I will provide an exact quote of the challenge I gave to you: "Using only *classical concepts* explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works." And I am still waiting for that explanation from you. In fact for about a century the entire world has been trying to find an explanation for quantum weirdness using only intuitive classical physics, and they have failed spectacularly. > > ...a complete non-sequitur. > What is a complete non-sequitur? > * > I replied that our quantum mechanical explanations are written out in > classically behaving ink. I never said explanations must be in classical > terms,* > Again I will use exact quotes as I wish you had. My challenge to you was: "Using only classical concepts explain to me how and why the Quantum Eraser Experiment works." And the best response to my challenge that you could come up with was: "*The explanation is in print which is classica*l" Then in your most recent post you **claimed** you had said: "*the explanation IF in print and print is classical.*" You added an "*if*" that your original quote did not have, and that "*if*" is of gargantuan size!* If *in the mathematical literature a correct proof that only a finite number of prime numbers exists, or that 2+2 = 5, *then* that proof is printed using ink that can be thought of as behaving classically because the quantum mechanical nature of the ink does not interfere with the information it conveys. The preceding sentence is perfectly true, it is also perfectly silly. *> I said they must be classically embodied.* I specifically asked for "classical *concepts*" that explain experimental results, but even if I had not specifically included the word "*concepts* " I would have found it very difficult to believe you really thought I was interested in ink and not in ideas. I think you were pretending to misunderstand what I was asking you to do because you couldn't find any other way to meet my challenge. But I could be wrong, if so do you also believe that professors of English literature are only interested in the sequence of ASCII characters that Shakespeare outputted when writing his plays and not the ideas the words made up of those ASCII characters represent? John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> spw > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1fCKQELwha44Cmx-%2B5Hvu5F4_TwfNdkxUT%2B6fsX0qEOw%40mail.gmail.com.
