On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 8:21 PM Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 3:09:08 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 7:50 PM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 12:22:01 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:55 AM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quantum mechanics itself is not counterfactually definite. Einstein >>>>> was wrong about this. A free electron is described by a wave packet which >>>>> is a superposition of states of definite momentum and position. There is >>>>> no >>>>> actual "position" for the electron until it interacts with a screen or >>>>> some >>>>> similar device. This is demonstrated by simple two-slit interference. >>>>> There >>>>> is no pre-existing position, unless you want to embrace Bohm's pilot wave >>>>> theory, in which the electron does have a definite, though unknown, >>>>> position at all times. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have come across an interesting video >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D9HkoHScdY >>>> >>>> in which Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of >>>> others talk about interpretations of quantum mechanics from their different >>>> perspective. I found the segment by Tim Maudlin particularly interesting, >>>> given his new book on the philosophy of quantum mechanics. His segment >>>> starts at about the 10 minute mark. But the other contributions also have >>>> some interest -- particularly Philip Ball towards the end (about the 20 >>>> minute mark). >>>> >>>> No definite conclusions are advocated, but it is interesting to hear >>>> the different perspectives. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Not sure what this is. >>> >> >> So why did you raise it? You have a habit of throwing irrelevancies >> around, Phil. It is not an endearing trait. >> >> Bruce >> >> > It's at the basis of* Tim Maudlin'*s interpretation. > Maudlin's interpretation of what? It does not appear to be relevant to his views on the ontology of quantum mechanics. So it would appear to be irrelevant to the short talk by Maudlin that I referenced. > "Gerard 't Hooft, Roger Penrose, Tim Maudlin and a couple of others talk > about interpretations of quantum mechanics from *their* different > perspective." > > > You brought up *Tim Maudlin*'s theory. I didn't. Apparently you don't > know anything about Maudlin's theory. (Which is a trait of yours.) > People can hold several different theories about different areas of science at the same time. Bringing up some bad review of a book by Maudlin on space-time theory does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, which concerned quantum mechanics. Your approach is sometimes known as 'poisoning the well', or an ad hominem attack -- bring up some irrelevant criticism of a person in order to discredit their views on something quite different. You are coming close to trolling behaviour, Phil. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS-hDgBnT6hpx9Lkc%2BM2ussrOtY6a5h7V6CnyyYAz-vaA%40mail.gmail.com.
