On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 4:27:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein >>>>>> was wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet >>>>>> which >>>>>> is a superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is >>>>>> no >>>>>> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or >>>>>> some >>>>>> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. >>>>>> There >>>>>> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot >>>>>> wave >>>>>> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown, >>>>>> position at all times. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have come across an interesting video >>>>> >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY >>>>> >>>>> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of >>>>> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their >>>>> different >>>>> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting, >>>>> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment >>>>> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have >>>>> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20 >>>>> minute mark). >>>>> >>>>> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear >>>>> the different perspectives. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not sure what this is. >>>> >>> >>> So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies >>> around, Phil. It is not an endearing trait. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >> It's at the basis of* Tim Maudlin'*s interpretation. >> > > Maudlin's interpretation of what? It does not appear to be relevant to his > views on the ontology of quantum mechanics. So it would appear to be > irrelevant to the short talk by Maudlin that I referenced. > >> "Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of others talk >> about interpretations of quantum mechanics from *their* different >> perspective." >> >> >> You brought up *Tim Maudlin*'s theory. I didn't. Apparently you don't >> know anything about Maudlin's theory. (Which is a trait of yours.) >> > > People can hold several different theories about different areas of > science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin > on space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, > which concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as > 'poisoning the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant > criticism of a person in order to discredit their views on something quite > different. > > You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil. > > Bruce >
But isn't someone who posts and doesn't say who they are a troll? You have no link to a profile, website, CV, or anything else that I have ever seen. It's like all the anonymous posters in social media - no one knows who they are. @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/951ddd18-63b0-4ac5-a3c3-b2992c3c422f%40googlegroups.com.
