On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, <[email protected]
<javascript:>>wrote:
>
>>
What is your definition of non-realistic?
>>
Nonrealistic means when something is not being observed
it doesn't exist in any one definite state.
>
You have to be careful here. For example, when the Earth-Moon
system formed, it existed in a definite state, but was NOT
observed.
That's just stating as a fact the very thing we're debating. Was
the Earth-Moon ever in one definite state? If MWI is right the
answer is no, it was always in a huge number of states, every
state that was not forbidden by the laws of physics. If Copenhagen
is right then Earth-Moon system was in no state at all for
billions of years until somebody made a measurement and the
fuzziness collapsed into one sharp definite state. Exactly what
does and does not constitutes a measurement the Copenhagen people
leave as a exercise for the reader.
Brent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think every macro system,
although comprised of a huge number of individual constituents, is in
one definite state; namely, the combined states of its constituents,
and this is because each constituent state has interacted with the
environment. That is, the lack of ISOLATION is the condition for the
existence of this macro definite state. OTOH, when, say, electrons are
prepared for a slit experiment, they are ISOLATED, and this gives rise
to the superposition of states, which is where the system is NOT in
any definite state of the states comprising the superposition.
This is looking at it wrong. A superposition is a definite state, it's
just not an eigenstate of the basis you've chosen. I'd say a
macroscopic object is never in a (knowable) definite state because it's
continually interacting with the rest of the environment. The Bucky
Ball experiment shows that even radiating some IR photons in enough to
destroy interference effects. So macroscopic objects have definite
(FAPP) states in the classical sense, but that's not the same as a ray
in Hilbert space.
Brent
Thus, if I am correct, the Earth-Moon system was, indeed, in a
definite state when it formed, even though there were no "observers"
of any type to witness it. I contend that your understanding of what's
necessary for an "event" to exist or occur, is seriously incorrect.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
