"In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. "
I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and observes what's inside, it can go either way. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities > actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). > In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that > atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are > measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, > the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong > the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the > assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. > > People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, > or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false > all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. > Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the > matter does not change because of our perceptions. "Probability" in this > case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of > anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more > rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has > provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study "increased the > probability" that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- > it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a > somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. > > Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the > "probability" will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people > will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold > units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and > *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. > > This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an > actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. > > - Jed > >
