On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Answers to your 3 questions.

1. No.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive. It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.

Then there is a collapse of the wave. I thought you disagree with collapse. Without collapse, if you look at a cat in the superposition dead +alive, you end up yourself being described by a superposition seeing a cat dead + seeing a cat alive. It is equivalent 'computationally) with a self-duplication.

Bruno




3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information space, as I've described before in a number of posts.

However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled "Yes, my book does cover quantum reality", or refer to the book itself, or I can explain further....


Edgar





On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
All,

I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he brings up a very important issue.

The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space.

However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between the dimensional variables of interacting particles).

I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically "we live in a simulation running on a quantum computer": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc

The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different interpretation.

I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny completely the notion of superposition. How can the single- electron double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than one place at the same time?

I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered the following questions. According to your interpretation:

1. Are faster-than-light influences involved?
2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead? 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the intermediate computations performed?

Jason


However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.




--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to