From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 20 2004 - 21:11:00 BST
I don't see what you are getting at here. Isn't "a given range of
possibilities" what a probability wave means? ---Yes
So what you are saying is the standard interpretation of the wave function,
plus a rejection of the
many-worlds view, since you say only one becomes actual.----I am also saying
that the possibilities
are real because they influence what actually occurs, it is this influence
that can be modelled,
in the way we can model atoms in a gas, but we have no idea what an
individual atom will be
doing in a gas and for a wave prior to collapsing in an event we have no
idea what the particular
event will be. The collapse of the wave function is the many possible
collapsing to the singular actual.
From wave to partic(al)ular.
In any case, I think referring to DQ as the uncollapsed state vector is
wrong. Since, though uncollapsed, there is nevertheless structure, the
uncollapsed state vector is unobserved SQ, not DQ.------I think this is
wrong.
There is both an indeterminate and patterned aspect to Schrodingers
equations
I believe.
DQ might be considered the observation that collapses it, though.
---To me this is clearly wrong. I do not believe that event are only
collapsed into actuality from possibility via observation. I prefer
the interpretation that macro-interaction of any kind produces collapse.
So that system commit themselves to one of the available equilibrium states
as Prigogine argues.
Collapse of the wavefunction as far as I understand it
relates to the imposition of a sudden change to the
mathematical description of a particle-packet in motion,
such that the indeterminate portion of the probability distribution can be
'collapsed' by the imposition of an external event such as measurement.
My suggestion/understanding is that this imposition occurs
all the time, so that Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive
whether we look in the box or not, I do not agree that consciousness
determines the exit of the cat from an indeterminate state.
But I think the fact that consciousness is faced with continual
choices/possibilities, which it chooses to bring into being or negate,
is a variation on the possibilities that are negated when the
wave function collapses in unobserved systems.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: MD Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber
> David M,
>
> > On QM, I don't think that is the solution.
>
> I'm not sure what "that" is that you are referring to. I only said that QM
> shows that the mathematics of limits does not solve Zeno's paradoxes, but
I
> didn't say what does. (Actually, I misspoke. Some of them are resolved, in
> that Zeno assumed that a sum of an infinite number of numbers couldn't be
> finite. But it can, QM or no).
>
> > Take Young's double slit experiment.
> > I take this as showing that between being fired
> > and hitting the wall on the other side of the slits,
> > an electron experiences all its possible routes
> > to the wall, these real possibilities interfere with
> > each other and causes the interference pattern to
> > apply to what we usually think of as a single elctron but
> > I suggest we think of it as a given range of possibilities
> > as real but only one becoming actual. DQ is a many and
> > an SQ event is a one. This is Prigogine's view I believe.
>
> I don't see what you are getting at here. Isn't "a given range of
> possibilities" what a probability wave means? So what you are saying is
the
> standard interpretation of the wave function, plus a rejection of the
> many-worlds view, since you say only one becomes actual.
>
> In any case, I think referring to DQ as the uncollapsed state vector is
> wrong. Since, though uncollapsed, there is nevertheless structure, the
> uncollapsed state vector is unobserved SQ, not DQ. DQ might be considered
> the observation that collapses it,
> though.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 20 2004 - 21:37:32 BST