On 12 Dec 2017, at 11:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/12/2017 8:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Dec 2017, at 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.
I was using "metaphysics" in opposition to your instrumentalist
FAPP distraction. Metaphysics and/or theology involves the question
of the existence of the universe(s), parallel or not.
Then you make ad hominem insult in place of argument. I guess your
goal is not to enlighten me.
You are the one making the personal attacks. You can do metaphysics
in the privacy of your own home, but here in public, I talk about
verifiable physics.
My attack was on your use of the "FAPP" to change the subject of the
discussion which was on metaphysics at the start: the existence of the
(obviously undetectable) other term of some macroscopic superposition.
(It was not ad hominem at all).
Bruno
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.
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.
