Hi Patrick
> Patrick wrote the last time (in a bit irritating tone of voice I see
> now, sorry):
Nothing to worry about, I'd rather worry if that never happened. It would
imply that nobody really cared about the discussion.
> Magnus, I believe it was you who recently said that the levels-thing was
> not about scales, and now you say that nonlocality only applies (below
> or) to the bottom of all levels, at the smallest scale that is. That
> seems to me quite a contradiction.
I guess it does, but the reason is the dependency of the levels. Locality
is actually only valued by inorganic patterns, but since the higher levels
are dependent on it, they also value locality indirectly.
> IMO, you can use the concept of
> locality to explain some levels perhaps as lower on the scale (if you
> want, like gas molecules being some scales lower than the diffusing gas)
> than other levels,
I disagree. I agree that scale is sometimes a good indicator of the level
involved, but mostly it's just misleading.
> but when you get in the sub-atomic realm the 'smaller
> fits in larger' concept looses its meaning. QM shows us the limits of
> locality, and shows us just something different (although indeed our
> present technology shows us only quantum effects at very small scale.
> But what about neutron stars and probably black holes? They can be quite
> big and probably harness large-scale quantum effects).
Good examples, I see no problem with that.
Magnus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:46 BST