On 8/4/2011 8:02 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/4/2011 8:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/4/2011 4:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,

On 8/4/2011 4:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
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.

Again, what is the motivation of the quasi-classical approach? More simple calculations? More intuitive models?

Predicting what is actually observed.

And what we observe is not framed and molded by our expectations? Come on! There is no much evidence that people see things only within the bounds of prior experience or not at all.

That's why science relies on independent replication and physical records of observations (which are necessarily classical, c.f. Ballentine).



I am asking about the motivation to maintain a paradigm that has long lapsed into obsolescence! The universe is not a giant clock work of isolatable and separable parts as the scientists of the 18th and 19th century believed. We have sufficient evidence to see this clearly, so why the romantic attachment with this vision?

Strawman. I carefully wrote *quasi-classicality*, not classicality.

WHAT DOES QUASI-CLASSICALLY MEAN? Please define this term.


It means classical physics (Newton, Maxwell,...) derived as approximations within QM.

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