On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:14 PM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > ** > *I am implicitly denying that decoherence theory can be valid for macro > objects *
If a "macro object" is something big enough to be seen with the naked eye then you've already been proven wrong. A drum .03 millimeters across made up of trillions of atoms was put into a Schrodinger Cat state back in 2010, it was both vibrating and not vibrating. https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html *>**I've been reading an interesting paper he wrote for a symposium in > 2004 in remembrance of the 50th anniversary of Bell's theorem; "John Bell’s > Varying Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics". For me the "tell" that it > can't be right for macro objects (with some minor exceptions as previously > noted) is the fact that it implies copies of worlds.* > OK now I understand why you think Everett was wrong, you just ignore evidence indicating that he was right. As for me I don't start out with a n axiom that fundamental reality can't be odd, so if experiment indicates that things are odd then I figure things are odd. And no quantum interpretation will make things not be odd. John K Clark -- 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.
