From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Wed Feb 26 12:53:21 EST 1992
Article 3902 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: QM nonsense
Message-ID: <437@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 92 17:14:46 GMT
References: <66422@netnews.upenn.edu> <427@tdatirv.UUCP> <66636@netnews.upenn.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 56

In article <66636@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|In article <427@tdatirv.UUCP>, sarima@tdatirv (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>At this point I say - positing a superposition of states serves no theoretical
|>purpose, and is no longer required by any prediction of the theory, so throw
|>it out as a needless complication.
|
|And at this point others say that positing a wave function collapse before
|the human observer serves no purpose either, and it is no longer required
|by any prediction, etc.

Except that this requires one *additional* assumption, namely that the
human mind has some mysterious, presumably non-physical, capability
that induces decoherence (I like that term).   It is this additional
assumption that makes it unacceptible by Occam's Razor.

The two interpretations are *not* equal in 'complexity'.  The interpretation
involving physically caused decoherence at least postulates the existance
of a *general* mechanism based on physical processes.  The Copenhagen
approach requires something akin to dualism.

|
|>				     "A difference that makes no difference
|>is no difference" - the superposition states of quantum particles are
|>*observable*, at least indirectly, through such things as self-interference 
|>patterns and 'watched-pot' effects.
|
|And how indirect are you willing to go?  Do you have a theory for saying
|which items collapse wave functions and which don't?

I have an intuitive feel for it, but my physics is too undeveloped for
me to have a well-defined theory.

However, I find the concept of non-reversible processes causing decoherence
a plausible one (at least as a first aproximation).

|>In short, as long as superpositons have observable consequences, I am forced
|>to accept them, where they do not, I see no reason to believe they exist.
|
|No, you choose to accept them, and from there you duck certain hard
|questions.  There are numerous interpretations out there, and each one
|has its packet of strangeness and difficulty.  They differ from each
|other wherein these packets lie.  If you only ask one question, it's
|easy to pick a winner.  But like I titled a previous posting, "Occam's
|barber had many customers."

I still find the addition of a dualistic assumption when it is not *required*
by the observations to be unacceptable.  And as far as I can see the
concept of physically produced decoherence does not have any strange pockets
left.  It only remains to experimentally investigate the necessary and
sufficient conditions for decoherence.

I do not really think I am ducking the question, I am only requiring
observable evidence before I accept strange assumptions.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


