On 21 Nov 2014, at 18:09, John Clark wrote:
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.
"real" is when I saw things, $and* I am not dreaming (say). But this
we cannot know, so to get the real, we need hypothesis/theories, until
refutation or awakening.
"real" is by definition the source of what I see, but experience told
us that what I see get deformed, and does not always point on what is
real.
>> 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.
?
No, when i explain quantum weirdness, I do a lot of calculations, and
we can get many quantum weirdness without using complex matrix. In
fact the pauli matrix sx and sz are real, and this can be used to
explain the Mach-Zendher weirdness, (or Stern Gerlach weirdness),
counterfactual computations, Deustch's problem and its improvement by
Ekert & All., even teleportation to a public without knowledge of the
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.
Yes, but guardian angels have no effects (well actually they do, but
that is another topic). Atoms, quark, and most notion in physics are
also not observable, but like the SW, they have indirect effects that
we can measure.
In this thread I suppose QM. If the wave is not real, explain me the
interference experience with one photon?
My point is not that QM ifs true, but that if QM is true, then we have
a local and deterministic global evolution, and indeterminacy, like
non-locality, are internal first person (plural) views. The SWE
explains the presence of them in the memory records of the observers,
without assuming them real.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
