On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 1:50:34 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > On 10/11/2019 11:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 12:10:27 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/11/2019 12:18 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> > I am saying that SINCE there is no unique representation, it's a >>> > fallacy to take, say one representation, and assert that the >>> > components in one representation, simultaneously represent the wf. >>> >>> But that's an invalid inference. If there is no unique representation, >>> then there is more than one representation. Some of those consist of a >>> linear composition of components. You seem to infer that because there >>> is no unique representation then representations in terms of components >>> is wrong...but those two things are not only consistent, they are >>> logically equivalent; each one implies the other. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> No; on the contrary, I think all the representations are valid. What's >> invalid >> is singling out one representation and asserting the system is >> simultaneously >> in ALL the components of THAT representation. AG >> > > I wasn't clear in one or more of my previous comments, but the latter is > what I meant. > All representations are valid; basic linear algebra. But to ascribe > ontological status to > one particular set of components, when in general there exists an > uncountable set, is > a fallacy. I thought I illustrated that point with S's cat. AG > > > Contrast the SG experiments with silver atoms. In that case the different > bases are equally real, but an atom can be in definite spin state, say UP, > which is a superposition of LEFT and RIGHT. This can be confirmed by > measuring in the LEFT/RIGHT basis. So did the LEFT/RIGHT components exist > when the atom was in the UP state? That sounds like a metaphysical or > semantic question about the meaning of "being in" a state. >
FWIW, I don't think it's a metaphysical question about the meaning of "being in" a state because, for example, the superposition misinterpretation (IMO) leads to claims a particle can be in several positions simultaneously. I don't understand spin state, so I won't comment on it at this time. AG > But Schroedinger's cat is different because it is impossible to measure > in the |LIVE>+|DEAD> and |LIVE>-|DEAD> basis. That was Schroedinger's > point that this superposition is absurd. But why is it absurd? The best > answer seems to be Zurek's einselection, meaning it's* not* because > there's an uncountable set of bases in the LIVE/DEAD hyperplane, but > because only |LIVE> and |DEAD> are stable states against environmental > interaction. > > 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/532ea5f7-353d-433f-afbb-1f87255f97b6%40googlegroups.com.
