On 09-12-2017 02:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/12/2017 11:27 am, smitra wrote:
On 08-12-2017 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/12/2017 11:43 am, smitra wrote:
On 08-12-2017 00:22, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 8/12/2017 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2017, at 12:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But as I pointed out, thermal motion gives momenta of magnitudes
such that the quantum uncertainties are negligible compared to
the thermal randomness. And thermal motions are not coherent.
You seem to work in Bohr QM, with some dualism between the quantum
reality and the classical reality.
Not at all. The (semi-)classical world emerges from the quantum
substrate; if you cannot give an account of this, then you have
failed
to explain our everyday experience. And explaining that experience
is
the purpose of physics.
You are right that this does not change anything FAPP, but our
discussion is not about practical applications, but metaphysics.
No, we were talking about tossing a coin, we were not talking about
metaphysics. Your metaphysics has served merely to confuse you to
the
extent that you do not understand even the simplest physics.
Andreas Albrecht is not confused about anything,
How do you know?
and yet he agrees with Bruno on the point of coin tosses.
Argument from authority?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953
Page 4 section 4:
" The point here is that even with all our
simplifications, we have a plausibility argument that the
outcome of a coin flip is truly a quantum measurement
(really, a Schrödinger cat) and that the 50–50 outcome of
a coin toss may in principle be derived from the quantum
physics of a realistic coin toss with no reference to classical
notions of how we must “quantify our ignorance”."
Albrecht's analysis is patently false, so you do not do yourself any
favours by quoting it in support.
I do suppose that you realize that Albrecht's argument is completely
orthogonal to your own. Nevertheless, the fact that he is wrong does
not imply that you are right.
Yes, it's a different argument but it's also generically correct. But I
do think for the discussions in this list it doesn't matter all that
much whether an initial single branch will diverge into multiple
branches due to effectively classical dynamics. In the article brain
processes are invoked that are argued to have such an effect.
Saibal
--
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.
