Blaze, a fine verbal joust. But you must admit it is not even close to reality.
Now you are engaging in a factious argument, Rossi and his eCat are not wave functions yet to be collapsed. Good comedy, but if I were to take you at your word, I would consider you needing to be picked up by some nice men dressed in white coming to take you away. ha ha. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > "In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense > that atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. " > > I suspect Schrodinger's cat would disagree with this statement. The > microscopic significantly influences the macroscopic world. > > The eCat is a perfect example of this. Until someone open's it up and > observes what's inside, it can go either way. > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I believe it is fair to say that in quantum mechanics probabilities >> actually exist in the physical sense (assuming the theories are correct). >> In the macroscopic world, probabilities do not exist in the same sense that >> atoms exist, or energy, or states of matter. Instead, probabilities are >> measure of human knowledge. When people are absolutely sure of something, >> the probability is close to 100%. When they are sure an assertion is wrong >> the probability is said to be zero. That has no bearing on whether the >> assertion is actually wrong in the real world. It only describes perception. >> >> People have often thought something is true which turned out to be false, >> or vice versa. The false assertions thought to be true were actually false >> all along, and forever after. They did not suddenly change in any sense. >> Regarding Rossi, he either has something or he does not. The truth of the >> matter does not change because of our perceptions. "Probability" in this >> case is merely a public opinion research outcome, which is never proof of >> anything, and seldom a reliable guide to anything. To establish a more >> rigorous probability you need more experimental data than Rossi has >> provided so far. In that sense, the ELFORSK study "increased the >> probability" that the claim is right. It did not actually reality at all -- >> it remains either true or false in the absolute sense. But it gave us a >> somewhat more scientific basis to hazard a guess. >> >> Eventually, absolute proof one way or the other may emerge. Then the >> "probability" will be settled, meaning the state of mind of many people >> will be permanently altered. That would happen, for example, if Rossi sold >> units and even the most skeptical holdouts at places like the DoE and >> *Nature* magazine acknowledged the device is real. >> >> This is not even slightly similar to quantum reification. That is an >> actual physical event, if you believe the physicists. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
