On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> To get something real that you can actually see >> > > > I am a platonist. If I see something, I very much doubt it is real ... >
Then I don't know what the word "real" means. >> You get all sorts of strange stuff with i, like i^2=i^6 =-1 and >> i^4=i^100=1. And in the macroscopic non quantum world if the probability >> of me flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2 and the probability of you >> flipping a coin and getting heads is 1/2 then the probability of both you >> and me getting heads is 1/4, but in Quantum Mechanics that's not >> necessarily true because now you must deal with i and complex numbers. I >> think you could say that mathematically it's the existence of that damn i >> in the SWE that makes Quantum Mechanics so weird >> >> > > I am not so sure. I am actually teaching quantum computation, mainly to > illustrate quantum weirdness and the many-worlds, and I can manage to do > that without using complex numbers. > Yes you can give examples of quantum weirdness without using complex numbers or even mathematics, but if you want to actually perform a calculation you're going to have to use complex numbers. > I am forced to consider the wave as real (ontologically), because it > interferes even when I don't look at it (especially if I don't look at it > actually) > If it makes you feel better you can say that guardian angels are "real" too, but just remember that they and Schrodinger's Wave are equally unobservable. 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/d/optout.
