> On 23 Oct 2018, at 11:20, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 1:41:06 AM UTC-5, scerir wrote: > > > The original 'cat' was, of course, Einstein's 'gunpowder' paradox. > > 'The system is a substance in chemically unstable equilibrium, perhaps a > charge of gunpowder that, by means of intrinsic forces, can spontaneously > combust, and where the average life span of the whole setup is a year. In > principle this can quite easily be represented quantum-mechanically. In the > beginning the psi-function characterizes a reasonably well-defined > macroscopic state. But, according to your equation [i.e., the Schrödinger > equation], after the course of a year this is no longer the case. Rather, the > psi-function then describes a sort of blend of not-yet and already-exploded > systems. Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned > into an adequate description of a real state of affairs; in reality there is > no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.' > > Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August 1935. in Fine, A. The > Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago > Press, Chicago (1986). Letter from Einstein to Schrödinger, dated 8 August > 1935. > >> > > > > Through no art of interpretation can this psi-function be turned into an > adequate description of a real state of affairs;
(I guess this is from AG). It is a description of (interfering physically) many “real” state of affairs. That is what is strange in QM: it describes an evolving wave of “possibilities”. Without collapse, you can only obtain what the observer can predict and observe from inside those possibilities. Actuality is a possibility (a consistent set of propositions) seen from inside. > in reality there is no intermediary between exploded and not-exploded.’ There are many intermediaries. Like some measure on the histories where it exploded, and histories where it did not. It can explode in all histories or in none, or in x percent of them. That does not give the measure per se, without defining histories and the mean of self-reference to define a “possibility seen from inside”. > > > This is interesting. > > Einstein (but other physicists too) avoiding retrocausality and > stochasticity, like vampires avoiding sunlight and running water. :) He was wise, imo. He did not pushes the relativity far enough, probably because it took the mind-body relation from granted. Assuming mechanism, it is a fact that the arithmetical reality emulates all observers view of consistent “histories” of some sort. The existence of a physical universe looks like a miracle to me, and I prefer to invoke miracle only in the last resort, and that feeling is amplified when you study the (negative) mathematics trying to see the limit of the art of prestidigitation of the digital. It is not computably bound-able. I don’t yet see the trick, but computer science and mathematical logic put a lot of light for this inquiry. Bruno > > -pt > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
