Re: Re: Re: Quantum physics per an ancient entity
Interesting Ian said:
Only if you're a realist.
In what sense are you using the term 'realist' and how are you relating that to wipeout's statement?
Are you referring to a Classical Realist? A Quantum Realist?
And what position are you taking instead that would render wipeout's statements incorrect?
There never were any conceptual problems. We just need to abandon this facile notion of a mind-independent reality.
And now Incredibly Arrogant Ian completely dismisses all current research and thinking about Quantum Physics.
He can't constructively criticise the comment so he makes sweeping unfounded assertations, that don't actually have anything to do with the commment.
Wipeout is saying that what you believe about Quantum Mechanics are actually outdated and superseded beliefs.
But you don't seem to like that, and in the absence of any knowledge on the subject you criticise the
mindsets that might say such a thing.
Of course it has no impact on the reality of the theories or the validity of wipeout's comments.
Another meaningless comment.
It's like a parent grounding a child for being naughty and the child saying "Oh you're such a bourgeouis fascist!"
Not constructive, not intelligent, not a clever counter-argument, just foot-stamping petulance.
They don't fit. Realism is nonsensical. Decoherence? Isn't that just they idea that a macroscopic object cannot in practice be in a quantum state for any appreciable period of time because they cannot be wholly isolated from the rest of their environment?
Well as far as I can tell that is
a part of decoherence. But there appears to be a lot more to it.
It's quite a crucial aspect of QM, and as wipeout says anyone talking about QM and not mentioning it probably doesn't really know anything about QM.
Well, that says absolutely nothing about whether macroscopic objects are subject to a quantum mechanical explanation, and it seems to me it has absolutely no metaphysical implications. Certainly it does not save realism.
Yes, it has no metaphysical implications.
Why do you imagine realism need saving? What do you actually mean by realism?
Now you are bizarely stating facts which we are all agreeing on, then apparently claiming this supports some point of yours about realism, although it isn't clear what.
Well, not decohernece it didn't. It was very simplistic and decoherence doesn't have any relevance to anything so far as I am able to understand.
Decoherence "is a consequence of quantum theory that affects virtually all physical systems", "arises from unavoidable interaction of these systems with their natural environment " and "explains why macroscopic systems seem to possess their familiar classical properties".
It's actually the closest thing to what you were talking about in regard to linking Quantum and Classical physical laws. (See
this site).
And yet you dismiss it as irrelevant?
Agin this shows how much more you need to know about this field before starting to attempt to generate your own theories involving QM, or criticising current theories as wrong.
