On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> 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, <agrays...@gmail.com> 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 like that formulation. I was reacting to Clark's comment that a system in a superposition of states is not in any state comprising the superposition, and thus, in this context, contradicted REALISM. .
> 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. > I meant that any macro state is definite, albeit always fluctuating. Not in a superposition. > > 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
