On 11/19/2019 12:30 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
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?/
Your knowledge of processes 10 billion years ago is based on
measurements done in telescopes and laboratories today and inferences
from them.
Knowledge (changing/updating knowledge) in any way whatsoever is
*completely irrelevant* to anything in quantum mechanics.
Forget "knowledge". I'm not arguing about semantics. I'm asking what
changes when there is a measurement of a quantum system?
Brent
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]
<mailto:[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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac582dc3-b712-40fc-8287-1dbf108209fe%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/4340a5e3-5b0a-dc82-42c4-a3d6ec236441%40verizon.net.
