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. >
FWIW, I don't think it's a metaphysical question about the meaning of "being in" a state because, for example, the superposition misinterpretation (IMO) leads to claims a particle can be in several positions simultaneously. I don't understand spin state, so I won't comment on it at this time. AG > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/532ea5f7-353d-433f-afbb-1f87255f97b6%40googlegroups.com.
