On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, [email protected] <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, <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <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 [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.
