On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 12:27:21 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
The reality of processes 10 billion years ago are not dependent on any
being ever measuring them and having their knowledge updated.
A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon
double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes
is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an arrow
shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its
position frame-by-frame.
@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/a302f46d-5b6c-42b3-9e3f-5f153ec75d8e%40googlegroups.com.
