On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No comment on the part of my e-mail that contradicts what you have been >> arguing? >> > > Are you referring to: > > "He [Bell] also always uses "the value" or "the result" when talking about > a measurement, which implicitly references the notion of collapse." > > People were referring to "the value" and "the result" long long before > Quantum Mechanics was discovered because people have been assuming realism > for as long as there have been people. And I have said many times that > realism was one of Bell's assumptions. > > > If you define "realism" as "having one definite value and producing only one definite outcome when measured", then what you say is true, but that is not what Everett, Einstein, or Schrodinger meant by realism, which is the idea that there is something real independent of our observations (that the moon is still there when you aren't looking at it). In Everett's theory the wave function fulfills that role. Realism is what allows cosmologists to speak of the universe operating under QM, without any life or observers to see it. Jason -- 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.
