Everything in the universe is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. This is how the universal simulator avoids pointless CPU processing.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:59 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Blaze, a fine verbal joust. > > But you must admit it is not even close to reality. > > Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not > wave functions yet to be collapsed. > > Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you > needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take > you away. ha ha. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker < > blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >
