On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/12/2018 3:02 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 8:20:00 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 6:13:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/12/2018 10:51 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 5:28:05 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/12/2018 1:01 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *The bottom line, or if you will, the 800 pound elephant in the room, 
>>>> is that the macro entities which are included in the seminal superposition 
>>>> of states for decoherence, are in thermal equilibrium with their 
>>>> environments, constantly emitting and absorbing photons -- before, during, 
>>>> and after their inclusions in said state. Thus, they never are, nor can 
>>>> they ever be isolated from their environments, making this seminal 
>>>> superposition of states an illusory construction. AG *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't you see that you're just repeating the old debate about the 
>>>> Heisenberg cut.  Where's the line between micro and macro?  You think 
>>>> simplistically by considering only really big stuff as classical and 
>>>> ignoring the fact that there is a whole range of sizes.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>> * I have NOT. I have stated several times that some macro objects are 
>>> EXCLUDED, such as those with well defined deBroglie wave lengths like 
>>> billiard balls and Buckyballs. For the vast set of applicable macro 
>>> objects, my claim remains; that there is a fallacy of including these 
>>> objects in superpositions, as doing so leads to a foolish conclusion; MW. 
>>> AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> You're missing the point that in every QM experiment there's a step 
>>> where micro goes to macro. It doesn't solve anything to rant about de 
>>> Broglie wavelengths of cats.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Before the Masters of the Universe included Observers, Instruments, and 
>> Environments in the wf's, did quantum experiments imply MW (excluding the 
>> MWI based on the SWE)?  AG*
>>
>
> *As I see it, decoherence theory "solves" the cat paradox by assuming 
> (falsely) that the cat can be isolated and then decoheres with extreme 
> rapidly, But then we're still left with a cat which is alive and dead 
> simulteously, but only for a very very short duration.  So No, I don't see 
> this as a solution. CMIIAW. AG*
>
>
> The cat is never isolated (that's a condition you just invented), but that 
> doesn't mean it can't be split into (FAPP) orthogonal states by becoming 
> entangled with the poison gas which is entangled with the radioactive atom 
> which is in a superposition of decayed and not-decayed.
>
> Brent
>

*Doesn't the superposition of states used in the cat problem. or indeed any 
quantum superposition, requires the system being measured to be isolated? 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to