On 8/4/2011 12:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/4/2011 1:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/4/2011 9:41 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Thanks for the link - very enjoyable talk. As far as I could follow
it, he seemed to be saying that the differentiation of decoherent
"worlds" is in the final analysis a "psychological" matter - i.e. that
quasi-classical "reality", as ordinarily experienced, is consequent on
the selection of particular "best-fit" or "most fruitful"
interpretations of functional or structural features of the underlying
I don't see how life (including us) could exist except at a
quasi-classical level. Evolution needs reliable replication to work
with. Given that we evolved as quasi-classical beings, it follows
that our perception, psychology, and interaction with the world must
Exactly what does the 'quasi-classical" property imply and what
does it bring to the table that is not in the quantum realm? Is it
persistence of structure? How does the unitary evolution of the wave
function not provide that?
It doesn't. Although decoherence theory is suggestive; it has not yet
been able to uniquely define "quasi-classical" within the framework of
QM without additional assumptions about pointer bases.
In fact, the quantum realm seems to even be over-determinative in the
sense that no only is one 'actual' real state of affairs of a world
non-contradictorily exists in the amplitudes of the wave function but
all possible versions of it.
A popular myth. QM does not provide that "everything happens". For
example eigenstates of an operator remain eigenstates in the unitary
While it is true that we seem to observe only one Boolean logic
representable slice of the totality of what is coded in the
amplitudes, it can easily be shown
It isn't "shown" at all. It's hypothesized in one model.
that this is just something like one subset of the set of all of the
Boolean representable 'possible worlds' that we see coded in the
I simply do not comprehend this emotional clinging to a classical
vision of the world; especially given the fact that it is demonstrably
false! It seems to me that your argumentation is just an attempt to
preserve your apparent belief in naive realism.
It seems to me that your reification of the wave function is an over
reaching extension of what we know from our classical observation driven
by a distaste for randomness.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at