Re: R: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
On 12 May 2012, at 22:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, scerir wrote:
A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
Evgenii
H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990)
reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome).
Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the
collapse,
and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be
followed, there
was "the free-will of the human observer".
I don't think this does justice to Born's views. He was not a
realist about the wave function nor about its collapse. His
position was that the classical world was logically prior and
necessary for shared knowledge to exist. Without it there could be
no measured values and no records.
I agree. Born was very cautious in making interpretations. Here, you
can see that he was very coherent with comp, which at some level,
accept "classicality" (the level of elementary arithmetic, that Born,
and many people still miss, but at least he was coherent).
Still, if you read his correspondence with Einstein, you can see that
he is still avoiding the hard questions, but then it is normal to do
that, and he does not entirely hide the fact that he does not (try) to
interpret the facts and theory. this is probably why he got the
probability idea, which of course no doubt it was fertile, even if
after Bell, it means something like QM is wrong or there is a
multiverse.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: R: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
On 12 May 2012, at 15:20, scerir wrote:
A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
Evgenii
H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990)
reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome).
That is using Nature as a God of the gap.
Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed,
there
was "the free-will of the human observer".
That is using Free Will as a God of the gap.
Put in another way; they just say "don't ask".
Everett solved this, without realising that its solution has to be
extended on arithmetic, and that the wave itself must be explained
entirely by the relative number computation statistics, to be just
coherent.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: R: Re: R: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
On 5/12/2012 11:21 PM, scerir wrote:
H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome). Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind
the collapse, and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would
be followed, there was "the free-will of the human observer".
-scerir
I don't think this does justice to Born's views.
He was not a realist about the wave function
nor about its collapse. His position was that
the classical world was *logically* prior and
necessary for shared knowledge to exist.
Without it there could be no measured
values and no records.
Brent
Brent, maybe so, but Born wrote the following:
"The question of whether the waves are something
"real" or a function to describe and predict
phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of
taste. I personally like to regard a probability
wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing,
certainly as more than a tool for mathematical
calculations ... Quite generally, how could we
rely on probability predictions if by this notion
we do not refer to something real and objective?"
(Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, "Natural Philosophy
of Cause and Chance", p. 107)
I stand corrected.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
R: Re: R: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome). Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind
the collapse, and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would
be followed, there was "the free-will of the human observer".
-scerir
I don't think this does justice to Born's views.
He was not a realist about the wave function
nor about its collapse. His position was that
the classical world was logically prior and
necessary for shared knowledge to exist.
Without it there could be no measured
values and no records.
Brent
Brent, maybe so, but Born wrote the following:
"The question of whether the waves are something
"real" or a function to describe and predict
phenomena in a convenient way is a matter of
taste. I personally like to regard a probability
wave, even in 3N-dimensional space, as a real thing,
certainly as more than a tool for mathematical
calculations ... Quite generally, how could we
rely on probability predictions if by this notion
we do not refer to something real and objective?"
(Max Born, Dover publ., 1964, "Natural Philosophy
of Cause and Chance", p. 107)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: R: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, scerir wrote:
A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
Evgenii
H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves packet).
Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
outcome).
Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there
was "the free-will of the human observer".
I don't think this does justice to Born's views. He was not a realist about the wave
function nor about its collapse. His position was that the classical world was
*logically* prior and necessary for shared knowledge to exist. Without it there could be
no measured values and no records.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
