On 6/17/2018 2:13 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I think Jason answered that question very well. But who knows
,
the Transactional Interpretation could turn out to be right, it
certainly makes far more sense than Copenhagen which isn’t even
wrong. Copenhagen isn’t weird its self contradictory, it says
quantum mechanics is the theory of the world and everything must
follow it, but when a measurement is made (which is so important
to Copenhagen) it insists that the measuring device and the
observer that looks at the measuring device be classical.
*
Well, any evidence that the device and observer are *not* classical?
But if you want to treat them quantum mechanically, apply decoherence
theory. Did it ever occur to you that the CI is a work in progress? AG*
JKC has mis-stated CI. CI didn't say QM as embodied in the SWE was the
theory of the world. Bohr and Heisenberg both held that the classical
world was logically prior to the quantum and that QM applied to
microscopic systems and systems composed of them but there must a scale
in any particular problem above which the system is treated
classically. Heisenberg thought there should be some cut off. Bohr
thought you could put the quantum-classical transition where ever was
convenient so long as it was prior to recorded results. This was
perfectly reasonable since otherwise there would be no results on which
scientists could agree.
Brent
--
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.
