On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement probl
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> >
>> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process?
>>
>
> You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is
> violated, and we
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how
and why obse
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how
and why observation effects things.
>
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, wrote:
>
> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process?
>
You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is
violated, and we now know from experiment that it is, and if that unknown
process is deterministic then the
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and
why observation effects things.
>
Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:40:45 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Nov 2017, at 07:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:22:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 10:34:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>
>>> >>
>>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
>>> observation effects things.
>>>
>>
>> >
>> Not to split hairs, but wh
On 11 Nov 2017, at 07:59, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-7,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:22:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
On 11/10/2017 10:01 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 2:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>> >>
>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
>> observation effects things.
>>
>
> >
> Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get in quantum measurements,
> and how measurement outcomes come to be wh
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:59:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:32:13 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 11:22:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/10/2017 10:01 PM, agrays...@gma
12 matches
Mail list logo
