On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:01 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 12/20/2018 9:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:08 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/20/2018 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:30 PM Brent Meeker <[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]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/20/2018 1:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:05 PM John Clark <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:16 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *> The Shrodinger equation is deterministic.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> > *Quantum Randomness, like a moving present, is a subjective >>>>>> phenomenon.* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Schrodinger equation describes 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. >> > > Also: it would be the only physical theory which held different principles > at different scales / magical observers (or consciousness, or something > else), > > > You really have taken a religious attitude toward Schroedinger's equation. > I view it as taking a scientific attitude towards the collapse postulate. > Have you considered that QM and gravity have not been reconciled and > theories can be replaced? > Maybe the SE or maybe GR will need to be amended, but under no circumstances do I see the collapse postulate making a come back. > > Bohr simply pointed out (correctly) that all measurement, all record > keeping, all reports, all replication of experiments, all science depend on > the existence of a classical realm. > Does it? We have computer memories that can store bits as single particles. > If decoherence theory can derive this realm as a statistical phenomenon, > fine; but it doesn't invalidate Bohr's point. > It is suspect for any physical theory to say it applies on small scales, but not at these larger scales. Is there any other example of this in physics? > > non-realism, > > > That's pretty funny from someone who imagines an infinite continuum of > "reality" in which everything and its contrary happens. > It is a realist viewpoint. > > violation of speed of light > > > There's no more or less violation of relativity in CI than MWI. > Correlations at space-like intervals show up in both > > You don't agree that correlations in MWI can explained locally without resorting to FTL influences? > , time irreversibility, > > > Irreversibility means some things happen and some don't. > > Again, the only theory in all of physics to dispense with this deeply held principle. > inability to consider multiple observers, inability to describe universe > prior to observers, non-linearity, discontinuous, etc. > > > CI did not depend on conscious observers. Instruments in the sense of > leaving physical records were enough. > > What counts as an instrument, or a record? Jason -- 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.
