Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jason Resch wrote:
There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a
big problem defining collapse.
Collapse is easily defined.
So at what point does it happen?
What triggers it?
On what scales can and can't it happen?
How do you define a measurement? An observer?
How is a measuring apparatus or an observer different from any other
physical object?
What is the special property of the observer / measuring device that
enables it to collapse the wave function?
If you have an observer who himself is isolated from an external
environment, can he collapse the wave function? Or can only you collapse
him by observing him?
All these questions are rendered irrelevant if you take the view that
the wave function is purely a device for calculating probabilities, not
something that has a real, independent existence. In other words, the
epistemic interpretation of QM. There is nothing physical to collapse --
we are dealing solely with classical probabilities.
Bruce
--
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 post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
