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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
