On 12/12/2017 12:18 pm, [email protected] wrote:
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. BruceWhy no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system, which IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG
It is not a coherent superposition. Do an experiment and see if there is interference. Is Schrödinger's cat dear or alive?
Bruce -- 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.
