On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 6:50:38 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/18/2019 4:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 18, 2019 at 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> In using path integrals you arrive a probabilities for various possible
>> outcomes. But that's not the end of the science. You also
>> observe/measure/experience some particular outcome. And then you compute
>> future path integrals starting from the observed state...using the observed
>> state implies you went from a state of uncertainty expressed by
>> probabilities to a state of certainty regarding the new state....aka using
>> knowledge.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
>
> *Knowledge* is something having to do with human brains ("knowing"), and
> when they became the "engines" of speaking and writing, then *knowledge*
> could be communicated between intelligent beings. (Perhaps other primates
> too are *knowledge*-able, but that's debatable.)
>
> Now it seems to me that in the first few billion years at least of the
> universe (after the Big Bang) there were no knowledge-able beings, There
> hadn't been time for them to evolve anywhere.
>
> But during that time quantum processes (and chemical, and at least
> somewhere at some point biological precesses) were going along fine without
> any knowledge-able beings exiting, and thus there was no knowledge
> changing" -- because there was no knowledge during that time.
>
> So how is knowledge needed as a concept in any way in QM when QM processes
> were occurring in the universe fine before knowledge existed?
>
> Whoever put "knowledge: in QM screwed up.
>
>
> You're dodging the question like you're running for office on the
> know-nothing ticket.
>
> I've already asked all the way I can think of what it is that causes you
> to change your estimate of the future evolution of a quantum system when
> you measure it. I've concluded you have no knowledge of this process.
>
> Brent
>
You are dodging the question:
W*as there any knowledge to be changed (or updated) - or my "knowledge of
this process" - or "my estimate of the future evolution of a quantum
process" - anywhere in he universe 10 billion years ago?*
Knowledge (changing/updating knowledge) in any way whatsoever is
*completely irrelevant* to anything in quantum mechanics.
That;s been stated at least 100 times, and that that was stated 20 years
ago on Vic's Atoms and Void. You keep objecting. OK. We get it.
@philipthrift
--
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/ac582dc3-b712-40fc-8287-1dbf108209fe%40googlegroups.com.
