John, Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points.
Edgar On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > > With decoherence everything is a wavefunction >> > > No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no > observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no > more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk > about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you > get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function > contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the > exact same probability when you square it. > > 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
