On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > 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 >
There may be some exceptions for my claim. I need to study the silver atom case and get back to you. But in the case of S's cat, I think the problem is with the alleged quantum states of |Live> and |Dead>. What is the operator that has those states as eigenstates? If it can't be specified, maybe the construct makes no sense. AG -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f1177128-f50f-4e41-8a47-4119a7cd3ca9%40googlegroups.com.
