> On 27 Oct 2019, at 06:42, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/26/2019 10:31 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> QM does suggest a particle can be in several paths simultaneously, but we >> don't have a concept to understand how that can be. AG > > Who says we don't have that concept? We have the mathematics to describe and > predict it. What more do you want…
Some interpretation of those mathematics so that we can make sense of it. But we do almost have it; it is the many-histories close to Everett’s formulation (QM + the assumption that the physicist obeys to QM). > something that would convince Aristotle or your great-grandmother? Nature > doesn't need to adjust to your intuition; it's the other way around. Indeed. But we can do metaphysics rigorously, explain why Aristotle’s theory does not work, and still continue to try to figure out what is reality. If not, we become instrumentalist and abandon the quest of knowledge. It is not because our older notion of reality do not work that there is no new one. In this case the new one is even a consequence of a more general assumption than Quantum Mechanics. Just Mechanics alone is enough. But yes, reality get very different than 1500 years of literally imposed Aristotelianism suggested. Bruno > > 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/f19554a3-1876-b540-23c3-2fde062eb2c3%40verizon.net. -- 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/8BA14420-D8E7-4C33-8068-64E7847CFBC1%40ulb.ac.be.
