> Where's where I'm confused: I thought it was only the detector
> envelope that determined the results envelope, not the other way around.

Right:  it should only be the detector results.  His set up is that
(1) if I look in the detector envelope, then there is no pattern in
the results envelope; and (2) if I don't ever look in the detector
envelope, then there is a pattern in the results envelope.  So, I set
the detector envelope on the desk, unopened.  I take the results
envelope and open it.  If there is a pattern, that means I never look
in the detector envelope; but then I look in the detector envelope.
If there is no pattern, that means I will look in the detector
envelope.  But then I'll immediately burn the detector envelope
unopened.

His set-up allows, then, for an impossible situation.

I think this impossible situation does not arise in quantum because it
is not consciousness, but causal interaction, that decoheres; it's
enough that the interaction is measured -- everything causally
interacting with the measurement (regardless of whether it is
conscious) is part of that collapse.

cd


On Sep 7, 7:10 am, Alicia Henn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2008, at 6:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I didn't follow that at all!  Is it me?
> > Nan
>
> > In a message dated 9/6/2008 5:00:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]
> >  writes:
> > Hey, I just realized, his story yields a paradox!
>
> > I can do the following:  I have the two envelopes, results and
> > detector.  I open the results envelope with the following conviction:
> > if there is an interference pattern, I will open the detector
> > envelope.  If there is no interference pattern, I will burn the
> > detector envelope.  Hence, there will be an interference pattern
> > inside the results envelope if and only if there is no interference
> > pattern inside the results envelope.
>
> > Hence, the situation K describes is impossible.
>
> > QED.
>
> > cd
>
> > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus  
> > the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to