On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 2:06:01 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:28:22 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 1:24:44 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 2:52:25 PM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 3:44:24 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the case of a radioactive atom in state |decayed> + |undecayed>, 
>>>>>>> what's the justification and advantage of the interpretation that it's 
>>>>>>> in 
>>>>>>> both states simultaneously? AG 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None, since it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @philipthrift 
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But doesn't the either/or situation imply no interference? AG 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the case of radium atom decay or no-decay which kills or doesn't 
>>>> kill the cat, there is no interference of the two possible histories (as I 
>>>> understand what physically is going on). Only one history survives.
>>>>
>>>> @philipthrift
>>>>
>>>
>>> Forget about the cat. For the radioactive source, can it ever be decayed 
>>> and undecayed simultaneously, and if so, why? AG 
>>>
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It can "be" *possibly-decayed* and *possibly-undecayed *simultaneously.
>>
>> That's as much as we can model the quantum nature of it.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> I think that's the statistical interpretation of the wf. Doesn't that 
> imply there is no interference? AG 
>

I think if one uses what I believe is the statistical interpretation of the 
wf, one is asserting that the wf tells us about our knowledge of the 
system, and nothing more; that is, the epistemological interpretation of 
the wf, not the ontological interpretation -- which leads to, say, the 
paradox of the radioactive source being IN two contradictory states 
simultaneously. OTOH, I seem to recall reading that the statistical (or 
epistemological)  interpretation has been generally rejected, possibly 
because it denies the existence of interference.  What's your assessment? 
TIA, 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/163c7785-0557-477f-9293-a601316770ad%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to