On 12/20/2018 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:30 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



    On 12/20/2018 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:27 PM Brent Meeker
    <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



        On 12/20/2018 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


        On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:05 PM John Clark
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

            On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:16 PM Jason Resch
            <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

                /> The Shrodinger equation is deterministic./


            Yes.

                > /Quantum Randomness, like a moving present, is a
                subjective phenomenon./

            The Schrodinger equationdescribes the quantum wave
            function using complex numbers, and that is not
            observable so it's subjective in the same way that lines
            of latitude and longitude are. However the square of the
            absolute value of the wave function is observable
            because that produces a probability that we can measure
            in the physical world that is objective, provided
             anything deserves that word; but it also yields
            something that is not deterministic.


        It is still deterministic.  If you say otherwise you are
        introducing "collapse", and saying the other unobserved
        outcomes have stopped existing and are no long part of the
        system.  Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what
        happened, it just says that you have ended up with a system
        with many sets of observers, each of which observed
        different outcomes.

        You seem to think Schroedinger's equation was handed down to
        him on stone tablets from God.


    QM is the most accurate and successful theory in science. I will
    believe it until something better comes along.

    It was the most accurate and successful theory in science well
    before Everett came along.



It wasn't a mathematical theory until Everett came along and deleted the unmathematical and loosely defined part that was incompatible with half a dozen scientific principles.

The only "scientific principle" CI was incompatible with was a revulsion for randomness.  As Roland Omnes' says it's a probabilistic theory, so it predicts probabilities.

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.

Reply via email to