> On 14 Apr 2021, at 17:15, Philip Benjamin <medinucl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>] > “But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole > point of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism)”. > [Philip Benjamin] > That is indeed physics proper. One has to appreciate your methodical > and systematic approach to this problem. It is commendable that, unlike the > order of the day, you do not rely on the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad > Verecundiam respect for “authority” of customs, institutions and I.Q.s, to > strengthen your argument and provide an illusion of proof. However, > probabilities are not necessarily possibilities. Amplitude of PROBABILITIES > is no exception. A theory of reality is not REALITY itself.
Indeed. That is even provable for the arithmetical reality, which is beyond all effective theories. > Numbers form 0 to infinity are syncategorematic nouns. Hmm… You might confuse the numbers, and the expression naming the numbers in some theory, like the numeral 0, s0, ss0, ... > Numbers of what? 2 + 2 = 4 is not a categorematic expression of REALITY > unless the “of what” is specified. Assuming that there is anything more, which I doubt. It helps, when doing metaphysics with the scientific method to make clear what we assume and what we derive from it. When we assume mechanism, and if one is aware of the execution of all computers in arithmetic, the burden of the proofs that we should assume more than numbers (or combinators…) is in the hand of the believers in that something more. > 2 electrons + 2 electrons = 4 electrons is a categorematic statement. The > probability of a massive particle being (or even becoming) a massless wave is > zero, nada, zilch. If my memory is correct even in a nuclear reaction > (explosion, included), the total charge before and after a nuclear reaction > is conserved; so also the total NUMBER of nucleons before and after a > reaction are also the same. It is the binding energies that are released. > As far as electrons in these PROBABILITES you cite are concerned, Bohr > has already assigned them to “stationary orbits” (predetermined energy > levels). Then where do the new “stationary orbits” of NEW REALITIES > speculated in various “mathematical/statistical” theories originate? What > kind of “chemistries” are available for these NEW REALITIES, such as Many > Worlds etc. ? What is the nature of a Many World chemistry? Good question. I can answer some of them in the frame of the computationalist hypothesis. Everything physical emerges from arithmetic as seen from inside in some mode of self-reference. What many people miss is that the notions of computer and computation are an arithmetical notion. Another “cultural” problem, since Aristotle, is the confusion between the (many) evidences that there is a physical reality, and the (absent) evidences that this physical reality is fundamental or primitive (= has to be assumed, or = cannot be derived from less). Bruno > Philip Benjamin > > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> <everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:47 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat > > > On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin <medinucl...@hotmail.com > <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > [Philip Benjamin] > Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy > particles is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely > scientific theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with > absurdities and speculations. Puzzle in, puzzle out!! There are and never > can be wavicles, only particles that behave AS IF in wave forms. An AS IF > Logic is all that is needed, not Both & Fallacy. The Schrodinger Cat was > introduced only to show the absurdity of taking probability statistics > seriously. Probabilities are not all possibilities. > > But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole point > of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism). > > > > > > Some of these pioneers of QM were occultists, alcoholics and some other > serious addictions. That is how the sorcerer-psychiatrist Carl Jung joined > them. Worldviews determine scientific interpretations. Interpretations are > not theories. CopenPagan Interpretation (a malaprop) is a pagan world-view, > not scientific theory. That is how Albert Einstein strongly disagreed with > Niels Bohr. > > > Which suggest that Einstein would have preferred Everett to Bohr. It is sad > that Einstein died in 1955. Everett published the “many-worlds” formulation > of QM (QM without collapse) in 1957. Most cosmologists prefer Everett, as it > is hard to imagine some being observing the whole universe to collapse it in > some state. Note that Belifante does exactly that: he claims that the use of > QM in coslmology requires an observer for the whole universe, and likes to > call it God, admitting that such a god is only a wave collapse, but Everett, > like Mechanism, illustrates that this move is not necessary. We need only > 2+2=4 & Co. > > Bruno > > > > > Philip Benjamin > Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:22 AM everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Mixed State vs > Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat > > > On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com > <mailto:agrayson2...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed > that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the > latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. > AG > > > Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, > and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any > possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE). > > That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be > lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of > seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, > the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring > in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative > universal number state in arithmetic. > > Bruno > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DM6PR11MB4691B5AC17A85CF90B0958ABA84E9%40DM6PR11MB4691.namprd11.prod.outlook.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DM6PR11MB4691B5AC17A85CF90B0958ABA84E9%40DM6PR11MB4691.namprd11.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/8F044B4D-9F9F-43B8-86AE-373E3BB25AA5%40ulb.ac.be.
