On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
> > On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>> On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>>>> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>>>>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
> >>>>>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
> >>>>>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead} base/apparatus.
> >>>>>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less with a
> >>>>>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin with more
> >>>>>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the Fourier
> >>>>>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible states/worlds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a coin, the
> >>>>>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
> >>>>>> momentum far below any level of possible detection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but irrelevant
> >>>>> for theoretical consideration.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you trot
> >>>> this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
> >>>> obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational argument to
> >>>> offer.
> >>>
> >>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
> >>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.
> >>
> >> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is whether a
> >> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with probabilities
> >> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum event
> >> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.
> >>
> >> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has nothing to do
> >> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
> >> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response to the
> >> clear physics of the situation.
> >>
> >
> > That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not imply
> > that there is no branching due to the coin toss.
>
> It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no
> possibility of interference between heads and tails.
>
> Bruce
>
Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, which
IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG
--
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.
