On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1:04:08 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
On 12/12/2017 11:44 am, smitra wrote:
> On 11-12-2017 23:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On 12/12/2017 1:12 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 10 Dec 2017, at 23:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2017 2:19 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> On 09 Dec 2017, at 00:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/12/2017 4:21 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>>> Similarly, a shroedinger car, once alive + dead, will never
>>>>>>> become a pure alive, or dead cat. It will only seems so for
>>>>>>> anyone looking at the cat, in the {alive, dead}
base/apparatus.
>>>>>>> Superposition never disappear, and a coin moree or less
with a
>>>>>>> precise position, is always a superposition of a coin
with more
>>>>>>> or less precise momenta. The relation is given by the
Fourier
>>>>>>> transforms, which gives the relative accessible
states/worlds.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pointed out that for a macroscopic object such as a
coin, the
>>>>>> uncertainty relations give uncertainties in positions and/or
>>>>>> momentum far below any level of possible detection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of possible practical detection. That is good FAPP, but
irrelevant
>>>>> for theoretical consideration.
>>>>
>>>> This is a purely rhetorical objection, Bruno. And when you
trot
>>>> this out, as you do regularly, I know that your purpose is to
>>>> obfuscate, and hide the fact that you have no rational
argument to
>>>> offer.
>>>
>>> You confuse physics and metaphysics. The difference is not
>>> rhetorical, but fundamental in this thread.
>>
>> Rubbish. The central point of contention on this thread is
whether a
>> coin toss can be regarded as a classical event, with
probabilities
>> given by ignorance of the initial conditions, or as a quantum
event
>> with probabilities given by purely quantum uncertainties.
>>
>> This is a straightforward question of physics, and has
nothing to do
>> with metaphysics. As usual, you introduce the term 'metaphysics'
>> merely to obfuscate, because you have no intelligent response
to the
>> clear physics of the situation.
>>
>
> That the probabilities are given by classical physics does not
imply
> that there is no branching due to the coin toss.
It does, because there is no superposition of head/tails -- no
possibility of interference between heads and tails.
Bruce
Why no inference? Is it because the coin isn't an isolated system,
which IIUC is a necessary condition for interference? AG
