On 1/5/2025 9:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 11:41 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 1/5/2025 7:29 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 6:56 PM Brent Meeker
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/4/2025 11:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 8:06:38 PM UTC-7 Alan
Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 2:11:02 PM UTC-7 Alan
Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 1:46:26 PM UTC-7
John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 10:00 AM Alan Grayson
<[email protected]> wrote:
/> Moderation is inappropriate where Trump
physics is endorsed. AG /
*About a month ago Sean Carroll uploaded a very
good video explaining the Many Worlds theory,
but it's over an hour long so I know there's
about as much chance of a dilettante such as
yourself of actually watching it is there is of
you reading a post of mine if it's longer than
about 100 words. *
*
*
*The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics | Dr. Sean
Carroll
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmxIUz21bo&t=8s> *
*
*
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at
Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
*Sure, I'll watch it. But I am still waiting for
your reply to my question, posed around 10 times,
why, based on S's equation, every thing that can
happen, MUST HAPPEN. And please don't offer your BS
that you've answered it repeatedly. Such a claim
would be blatent lie. Finally, I know what you
haven't offered the answer. It's really simple. You
don't want to admit the Emperor has no clothes, as
such an admission might trigger a coronary when you
realize you've been preaching a lie these many
years. AG *
*I watched it. I can't say I fully understand it or
believe it. I'll probably watch it again. I do know that
lately I am less impressed with the cat experiment, as I
recall a recent comment by Brent; that there's no
operator which has Alive and Dead as its eigenvalues.
This, IMO, means that the cat's wf isn't a valid quantum
wf. AG
*
You're misinterpreting what I wrote. I meant that being
alive is a superposition of a bazillion of different wave
functions so it is impossible to formulate a measurement
operator which will return just one of two values that
actually correspond to Alive and Dead. In other words the
exist a range of states that count as alive, some of which
are dying, and a range of states that would count at dead,
but some of which are recovering. It doesn't mean there is
no WF of the cat. I means that alive and dead are only well
defined in the extreme cases because the cat has many
intermediate states which we can't account for in our
measurement operator.
In terms of our fuzzy ordinary language this may be true, but in
classical mechanics we have the notion of a "macrostate" which is
defined as some large set of microstates, can we do something
similar in QM and just imagine classifying every possible
position eigenstate
But what's your assurance that position eigenstates are the ones
that provide a binary alive/dead dichotomy? And position of
what? Particles...that doesn't work because the particle
positions don't define an eigenstate of the whole. It's a feature
of QM that measurements are holistic. You have to know what
"alive" means in order to measure it.
Brent
I'm not a vitalist, so I don't think there is any objective quality in
nature of "aliveness" such that a human choice of definition could be
objectively right or wrong, any more than there is an objective
quality of "planetness" such that the recent decision to change the
definition to exclude Pluto could be objectively right or wrong. To
paraphrase Democritus, in truth there are only atoms and void (or the
modern equivalent, say states of quantum fields), all higher level
categories are just useful conventions--Sean Carroll's book The Big
Picture calls this view "poetic naturalism". Given the understanding
that terms like "life" are just a matter of convention, one could come
up with a convention that's as precise as one likes, including
defining every position eigenstate as either a living thing or not a
living thing (and the choice to use position eigenstates rather than
momentum would also be a matter of convention).
So you're saying if you make "alive" and "dead" arbitrary then you can
measure them.
Brent
--
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 visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d8e2561c-f76f-4940-9cad-42b5b7efc615%40gmail.com.
