On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/10/2017 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Dec 2017, at 01:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/8/2017 4:27 PM, 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”."
Except that is inconsistent with the fact that stage magicians
teach themselves to flip a coin and catch it with a predetermined
result.
The fact that magicians have to learn to do that illustrates the
hardness of that practice.
Showing that it is merely "hard" to violate quantum mechanics??
I doubt that they could do this for the protocol under
consideration, where the coin is in a box, and we can shake it as
long as we want.
I don't understand why it would be any different. It's just more
classical interactions. Are you relying on sensitivity to initials
conditions to split worlds? Everett will turn over in his grave.
Agreed, but here it is the mixture of sensitivity to initials
conditions (trace out to get my own relative state) + the quantum
uncertainty.
Bruno
Brent
--
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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
