> On 1 Aug 2018, at 20:59, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 8/1/2018 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 07:49, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net >>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/31/2018 10:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:52 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net >>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/31/2018 2:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net >>>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7/31/2018 9:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:11 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net >>>>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/30/2018 9:21 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com >>>>>> <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2018 at 1:34:58 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/30/2018 4:40 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 7:50:47 PM UTC, Brent wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/30/2018 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>>>>>>> and claims the system being measured is physically in all >>>>>>>>>> eigenstates simultaneously before measurement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nobody claims that this is true. But most of us would I think agree >>>>>>>>> that this is what happens if you describe the couple “observer >>>>>>>>> particle” by QM, i.e by the quantum wave. It is a consequence of >>>>>>>>> elementary quantum mechanics (unless of course you add the >>>>>>>>> unintelligible collapse of the wave, which for me just means that QM >>>>>>>>> is false). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This talk of "being in eigenstates" is confused. An eigenstate is >>>>>>>> relative to some operator. The system can be in an eigenstate of an >>>>>>>> operator. Ideal measurements are projection operators that leave the >>>>>>>> system in an eigenstate of that operator. But ideal measurements are >>>>>>>> rare in QM. All the measurements you're discussing in Young's slit >>>>>>>> examples are destructive measurements. You can consider, as a >>>>>>>> mathematical convenience, using a complete set of commuting operators >>>>>>>> to define a set of eigenstates that will provide a basis...but >>>>>>>> remember that it's just mathematics, a certain choice of basis. The >>>>>>>> system is always in just one state and the mathematics says there is >>>>>>>> some operator for which that is the eigenstate. But in general we >>>>>>>> don't know what that operator is and we have no way of physically >>>>>>>> implementing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can only speak for myself, but when I write that a system in a >>>>>>>> superposition of states is in all component states simultaneously, I >>>>>>>> am assuming the existence of an operator with eigenstates that form a >>>>>>>> complete set and basis, that the wf is written as a sum using this >>>>>>>> basis, and that this representation corresponds to the state of the >>>>>>>> system before measurement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In general you need a set of operators to have the eigenstates form a >>>>>>> complete basis...but OK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am also assuming that the interpretation of a quantum superposition >>>>>>>> is that before measurement, the system is in all eigenstates >>>>>>>> simultaneously, one of which represents the system after measurement. >>>>>>>> I do allow for situations where we write a superposition as a sum of >>>>>>>> eigenstates even if we don't know what the operator is, such as the Up >>>>>>>> + Dn state of a spin particle. In the case of the cat, using the >>>>>>>> hypothesis of superposition I argue against, we have two eigenstates, >>>>>>>> which if "occupied" by the system simultaneously, implies the cat is >>>>>>>> alive and dead simultaneously. AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, you can write down the math for that. But to realize that >>>>>>> physically would require that the cat be perfectly isolated and not >>>>>>> even radiate IR photons (c.f. C60 Bucky ball experiment). So it is in >>>>>>> fact impossible to realize (which is why Schroedinger considered if >>>>>>> absurd). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CMIIAW, but as I have argued, in decoherence theory it is assumed the >>>>>>> cat is initially isolated and decoheres in a fraction of a nano second. >>>>>>> So, IMO, the problem with the interpretation of superposition remains. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why is that problematic? You must realize that the cat dying takes at >>>>>> least several seconds, very long compared to decoherence times. So the >>>>>> cat is always in a classical >>>>>> state between |alive> and |dead>. These are never in superposition. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't go away because the decoherence time is exceedingly short. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes is does go away. Even light can't travel the length of a cat in a >>>>>> nano-second. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What if the cat is on Pluto for this one hour? Would it not be >>>>>> perfectly isolated from us on Earth, and thus remain in a superposition >>>>>> until the the several hours it takes for light to get to Earth from >>>>>> Pluto reaches us? >>>>> >>>>> ?? Are you assuming that decoherence only occurs when humans (or >>>>> Earthlings) observe the event? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, just that superposition is a relative, rather than objective notion. >>>> >>>> OK. Welcome to QBism. >>>> >>>> After reading the wiki article on QBism I still can't say I understand >>>> what it is about, as it doesn't seem to offer any core positions. >>>> >>>> I am an adherent of bayesianism, and believe it applies generally in all >>>> domains (being an agent having to make decisions/bets), so what does QBism >>>> add if one already accepts a general reliance on Bayes theorem? It >>>> doesn't seem like QBism takes any strong position on any of the quantum >>>> paradoxes, nor offer any insights to addressing or explaining them. In >>>> this it seems like a pretty empty theory, with hints towards the >>>> "instrumentalist" and "shut up and calculate" mindsets--that only the >>>> probability matters. To the extent that is true, I reject QBism. While >>>> QBism might not put forward anything that is false, the attitude it >>>> conveys seems like it would stymie progress towards advancing our >>>> understanding of reality. >>> >>> QBism says that QM is a theory for predicting personal beliefs. The >>> "collapse" of the wave function is simply updating one's beliefs based on >>> an observation. >> >> >> That leads to the many-worlds, or its "many-minds” variants (even closer to >> what mechanism enforce on the interpretation of the observable). ITSTM. > > There are many-minds who just happen to have (in many cases) different > information about the world and so use different states or Hamiltonians to > predict what they will observe. But the evidence is that there is only one > world.
No. The evidences are that superposition exist physically, and are contagious to observers. Now, “world” is ambiguous. With mechanism, there is only one physical reality, but it contains many differentiating branches, which interfere statistically from the first person pod of the physical observers, and all this is explainable one we understand that a mind cannot attribute one body to itself, but only an infinite numbers of bodies represented in arithmetic. The evidence for physics are not evidence for physicalism, which get wrong on consciousness. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
