On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:26:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 May 2018, at 13:02, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> It assumes? Or does it entail the appearance of the classical-like >> structure? What you say is very interesting, but I have not yet much >> understanding of QM+gravity. My own non expert and non rigorous (old) >> attempt leads to … to much white holes: there should be almost everywhere, >> but … I will need to revise a bit of differential geometry (where I am not >> so much at ease). >> > > I use the word assume to mean acquire. The system acquire more classical > properties and nonlocality is virtually gone. > > > If “acquire” means “physically acquire”, that view could be problematic > with the computationalist assumption. But that would be long to explain > just here. With mechanism we assume a simple classical (boolean) reality > (arithmetic for example), and explain all non classical logics by the > constraints of self-referential correctness, which makes all "empirical > logics” non classical. > > Bruno >
Classicality may simply be an approximation. It may not fundamentally exist, and if it does there are then deep questions on how quantum mechanics builds up this phenomena that appears classical. If quantum and classical realities are separate and equal aspects of the world, such as what Bohr maintained, then one must deal with objective loss of quantum information. LC -- 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.
