On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 9:06:44 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 8:47:15 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/7/2019 6:39 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 6:25:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/7/2019 5:01 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> There is no paradox. It's just some hang up you have that a cat can't >>>> be dead and alive at the same time. It's as though your physics was stuck >>>> in the time of Aristotle and words were magic so that "Alive implies >>>> not-dead." was a law of physics instead of an axiom of logic. >>>> >>>> In fact a moments thought will tell you that quite aside from quantum >>>> mechanics there would be no way to identify the moment of death of the cat >>>> to less than a several seconds. It would be simply meaningless to say the >>>> cat was alive at 0913:20 and dead at 0913:21. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> You can imagine a different experiment, without cats, with the same >>> paradoxical result. The point of Schroedinger's thought experiment was to >>> demonstate tHE title of this thread; that there's something wrong with the >>> prevailing interpretation of superposition. In your view I am hung up with >>> Aristotle? In my view, you're seduced by some quantum nonsense. AG >>> >>> >>> Prevailing when? 1927? There is no problem in the prevailing 2019 >>> interpretation, except in your mind because you assume that a cat cannot be >>> in a superposition of alive/dead even for a fraction of a >>> nano-second...because...WHY? The radioactive atom can be in a >>> superposition of decayed and not-decayed for a nanosecond. Why doesn't >>> that violate your Aristotelean logic? >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> What's wrong with the interpretation that the radioactive atom is either >> decayed OR undecayed with probabilities calculated by Born's Rule? AG >> >> >> Being in the quasi-classical state of either decayed or undecayed assumes >> the superposition of decayed and undecayed has decohered by interaction >> with the environment. The interactions that produce decoherence all >> proceed at less than the speed of light, so it is not instantaneous. So >> the atom and the cat are no different...except the time for which one can >> keep them isolated from the environment. >> >> Brent >> > > Maybe isolation is an idealization which never exists in nature. That > would put this issue to bed. AG >
Yes, I think that's right. If you imagined a particle being created, wouldn't it fail to be isolated at the moment of its creation? 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/2368c037-ac77-4205-98bf-3b5e9ba5bf68%40googlegroups.com.
