On 10/11/2019 11:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
> I am saying that SINCE there is no unique representation,
it's a
> fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert that the
> components in one representation, simultaneously represent
the wf.
But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique
representation,
then there is more than one representation. Some of those
consist of a
linear composition of components. You seem to infer that
because there
is no unique representation then representations in terms of
components
is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent, they are
logically equivalent; each one implies the other.
Brent
No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are valid.
What's invalid
is singling out one representation and asserting the system is
simultaneously
in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG
I wasn't clear in one or more of my previous comments, but the latter
is what I meant.
All representations are valid; basic linear algebra. But to ascribe
ontological status to
one particular set of components, when in general there exists an
uncountable set, is
a fallacy. I thought I illustrated that point with S's cat. AG
Contrast the SG experiments with silver atoms. In that case the
different bases are equally real, but an atom can be in definite spin
state, say UP, which is a superposition of LEFT and RIGHT. This can be
confirmed by measuring in the LEFT/RIGHT basis. So did the LEFT/RIGHT
components exist when the atom was in the UP state? That sounds like a
metaphysical or semantic question about the meaning of "being in" a
state. But Schroedinger's cat is different because it is impossible to
measure in the |LIVE>+|DEAD> and |LIVE>-|DEAD> basis. That was
Schroedinger's point that this superposition is absurd. But why is it
absurd? The best answer seems to be Zurek's einselection, meaning
it's/not/ because there's an uncountable set of bases in the LIVE/DEAD
hyperplane, but because only |LIVE> and |DEAD> are stable states against
environmental interaction.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/467ab95b-fe0a-7077-373a-a40165751434%40verizon.net.