On 5/9/2013 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 22:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that.
only things that happen without our - so far - accessed explanation.
And thanks to experiments involving Bell's inequality we know for a fact
that if apparently random things happen for a reason they can't be local
reasons; for example the reason the coin came up heads right now is because
a billion years in the FUTURE a butterfly like creature on a planet in the
Andromeda Galaxy flapped it's wings twice instead of 3 times.
Hi Bruno,
You assume the collapse of the wave. There are experimental evidences
against it,
Could you elaborate?
I was thinking to quantum erasure experiments. We can make a wave "collapse", by some
measurement, and still make it cohere again, by erasing the memory of the
experience/the result of the experiment. If observation did collapse or select
irreversibly, that could not make sense.
But it isn't a "measurement" if you can make it cohere again. A measurement is
irreversbile, "erasing" means reversing the process that, if it were not erased could
have become a measurement.
You beg the question. Nothing is irreversible.
On the contrary it is you who are begging the question. You are claiming that
measurements are reversible because your theory says they are reversible, even though in
practice they are not, and this shows your theory is right.
For practical reason macroscopic measurement seems irreversible, as we cannot track the
leaking of information, and can no more practically erase it. Quantum erasure algorithm
would not work if measurement were irreversible, and what such local measurement, where
we can still erase the information and get back to coherence shows that the collapse is
not well defined. Of course Einstein already shows that the collapse cannot be
covariant, and Bohr acknowledged that it cannot be a physical event, but then why to
introduce it to begin with (except the wanting to be unique).
Yes, it's a mathematical operation. In decoherence theory, it's taking a trace. I'm
quite willing to entertain the idea of FPI, but it's till randomness.
Brent
Quantum computation algorithm also support the relative "physical reality" of the
superposition states.
The collapse is not even an axiom. It is a meta-axiom saying 'don't listen to the
theory when she talk about you or your body. She get absolutelly crazy, like if we
could be ourself in superposiion states Ha ha ha!".
Without the Born axiom there'd be no way to related QM to actual observations.
According to the Schrodinger equation nothing every really happens.
Nothing or everything happens, with the SWE or with arithmetic. Then it is a matter of
listening and studying the memory content of the subsystem inside. They do believe
things happen, and they are right.
And the Born axioms can be extracted from SWE + COMP (+ FPI). Only problem: the logic
asks to derive the SWE too, and this works well up to now.
Bruno
Brent
and there are no experimental evidence of any randomness other
than some FPI, on the branch of a universal wave, or, as we need with comp,
on arithmetic.
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion. It is a
belief in something without any evidences, to introduce unsolvable problem
on purpose.
This is a strong argument in favor of theories like comp, or at least
some form of many-worlds. "True randomness" strikes me as an euphemism
for magic.
I suspect you mean "true physical randomness", or a 3p randomness, but this still
exist mathematically, and experimentally, like when splitting beams of photons are
observed, of course it is only first person indeterminacy on the wave.
Betting on "true randomness" for an observed reality is like asserting "don't ask for
more explanation".
But from inside we might be confronted with some true randomness, like with the
quantum beams.
Bruno
Telmo.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
[email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
