On Sunday, September 21, 2025 at 5:41:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>> Microscopic systems have quantum wave functions just like microscopic objects do. A dead horse and a living horse are different physical states and they contain different physical information. And neither physical state is forbidden by Schrodinger's equation. And if Schrodinger's equation is deterministic, which it is, then when it comes to physical information and therefore physical reality, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory. * *> Why mandatory?* *Because Schrodinger's equation is deterministic. * *> How can you know what's forbidden or not?* *If it contradicts Schrodinger's equation then it is forbidden. For example, 2 fermions that are in the same quantum state that are occupying the same position is forbidden because the quantum wave amplitude drops to zero at that point and therefore there is zero probability of it ever happening. * >> *Also, the pilot wave can affect an electron but an electron cannot affect the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the particle can NOT push back. **This sort of one-way causation has never been observed before.* *>**In classical E&M, does a charged particle push back when it responds to the field? * *Yes, **when you push a charge you accelerate it, and you're not just changing its motion, you're also creating a electromagnetic disturbance that carries energy and momentum away from the system; it's called the the Abraham-Lorentz force, it produces a reaction on an accelerating point charge and it can be calculated with the following equation: * *Reaction force = (μ₀q²/6πc) × (d³v/dt³) where μ₀ is the permeability of free space constant and its value is 4π × 10⁻⁷ N/A² (newtons per ampere squared).* *But there's nothing equivalent to that when it comes to pilot waves, which makes me suspicious. I don't think they exist. * *>> As I've said before I can't prove that super determinism is wrong but I can prove that super determinism is silly. **The greater the violation of Occam's razor that your theory needs to be true the sillier it is, and by that metric it would be impossible to be sillier than super determinism. * *>That's your aesthetic/logical judgment* *It certainly is! In my judgment Superdeterminism is ugly and logically flawed. And I've given you a precise definition of "silly". * *As technical resident expert on silliness, is it not silly to claim S's equation can describe the coronary status of horses and presumably all mammals? If not, how would you write S's equation for wf information on coronary disease? What are the silly aspects of Superdeterminism for comparison? AG * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* pds -- 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/df643b1f-66b1-40db-81d2-22920d8c2ca4n%40googlegroups.com.
