On 8/4/2011 12:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,

On 8/4/2011 1:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/4/2011 9:41 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Hi Stephen

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
micro-physical state-of-affairs.

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 be quasi-classical.

Brent


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 evolution.

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 amplitudes. 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.

Brent


Onward!

Stephen


--
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