On Mar 9, 12:30 pm, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/11 14:39, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 11:47 am, Andrew Soltau<andrewsol...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 06/03/11 15:22, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltau<andrewsol...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:>    Collapse "appears" to 
> >>>> instruments as well as people
> >>>> We don't have any evidence for that,
> >>> Of course we do
> >> That was a rather blanket statement. But if we can doubt the existence
> >> of everything but our minds, then we don't have any evidence for it!
>
> >> But I think it is perfectly tenable to say that we cannot prove that the
> >> instruments which appear to us to be collapsed are in fact not
> >> collapsed, that there is only the appearance of collapse subjectively.
> > That they really are collapsed is tenable too.
>
> Yes, but it is an assumption, a theory. What we have is evidence that
> subjectively there is collapse, and that objectively, 'most of the
> time', the wave equation applies, complete with decoherence producing a
> mixture of all possible states.>> How could one possibly disprove that?>>  
> indeed, if we take either the
> >>>> concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously,
> >>> We shouldn't take Wigner's friend as proving CCC, since it is
> >>> intended as a reductio ad absurdum of it.
> >> OK, but I happen to think it is a precise explanation of how reality works.
> > It is strange to regard something intended as a paradox as an
> > explanation
>
> Maybe, but I have read leading figures in modern physics explaining that
> the world really is as Schroedinger's cat demonstrates.>>> And RQM doesn't 
> remotely have that implication.
> >> Yes it does. In RQM the environment is determinate where, and only
> >> where, the observer has observed it.
> > In RQM, the observers knowledge becomes determinate
> > when they observe something.
>
> As does the environment.

The environment is neither determinate nor indeterminate in RQM,
because
"determinacy" is relational
Individual systems may or may not be able to extract classical
information from other individual systems

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to