There is a growing cancer in physics that needs cutting out.I look forward to Philip Helbig's review of this drivel in The Observatory. Naively, we take spin to be a property of particles. Scientists should not engage in it, or if they do, at least acknowledge that what they do is not science. Physicist doesn't want to understand statistical correlation as causality. Superposition. And biology reduces to chem and physics.For better or worse, this just is twentieth-century science.And your silliness about "prefactors" sounds as if you are high or something. "Your claim doesn't make sense: members of the public are not informing you that the theory is called the Big Bang, nor are they telling you that "everything was compressed into a point of infinite density and infinite temperature. The case of just one physical cosmology would then be a limiting case."Right. A supernatural explanation would not be reductionist at all, quite the opposite in fact. )So, if my minimalist “translation-dictionary” theory is true, there is nothing there except quarks and leptons, etc., but there are emergent properties of quarks and lepton in bulk in certain unusual situations that cannot be explained by current physics – you need the translation dictionary.Could even be true – though I doubt it: as you know I doubt all theories of consciousness including my own.As we have discussed, I slightly prefer my “consciousness is to brain as candle flame is to candle” theory. On the other hand, wouldn't an epistemic state be objectively real? We can't prove such does not exist. Okay, now I see what you are getting at.The answer is that in certain situations it is fairly straightforward to prepare a system in such a way that we know what the coefficients (“prefactors”) are. But quantum mechanics does all of that and more.John also wrote:>Mathematical relationships without cause/mechanism that describe natural effects lead to absurd. Steven: "Who provides off-the-record comments as empirical evidence but a complete liar? "And of all the "universes" you consider, only one of them is known to be physically possible.As to the probability that other universes may be possible there is zero information about this: 0 <= probability other universes are possible <= 1.That's all that is empirically known. One of the properties that sets a qubit apart from a classical bit is that it can be in superposition. So, entanglement implies that conserved quantities are not conserved until someone makes a measurement. The quick answer is that Physicist Dave's hand waving version of "reductionism" pretends there is no question of how thermodynamics quantum mechanically creates the arrow of time. We do not need your idea because we already have a perfectly good explanation. Though saying being fundamental means that you can write a wave function for it is the same thing?You are really betraying your ignorance of physics here!It is routine to (successfully) use wavefunctions for things much, much bigger that a single photon or lepton.SJ also wrote:>Guessing that the "prefactors," (coefficients in equations according to Google,) are supposed to have something to do with "realistic?" And what does it have to do with entanglement? If you want to try and sneak your whacko delusions into Physics, you will have a fight. Classical mechanics is not going away. There is, for what fundamental physics concerned, nothing "retrocausal" going on in any of these models. I find these "superpositions" utterly meaningless, but perhaps Mr. Know-it-all can reveal the deeper meaning to us fools. By a causal explanation I do not mean a formal description as we get it from Quantum mechanics; but a physical explanation where the cause of this phenomenon is visible. I prefer Peskin and Schroeder: "This procedure is sometimes called second quantization, to distinguish the resulting Klein-Gordon equation (operators) from the old one-particle Klein-Gordon equation (wavefunctions). You need to get psychiatric help for your mental delusions - what is in your head is not necessarily real.3) You announced to the Sydney Morning Herald(?) And what does it have to do with entanglement? [Dave's] version of reductionism thinks there is, but he's full of shit. The wording was perhaps a bit too provocative. The density matrix ρ = |ψ⟩⟨ψ| is seen trivially to be a Hermitian operator, which gives real eigenvalues for the measure of observables pertaining a system. Measurement is a whole different discussion. There are a lot of ways to describe the difficulties with quantizing gravitation. Lawrence Crowell6:18 AM, June 17, 2020It's still a vague narrative, though. "So you do agree that conscious experience is physical, as far as we know! Physicists use the wave function in their research all the time.
Zeiss Upmc Ultra, Shopback Contact Email, Funko Pop Shop Near Me, Swiss National Day Facts, The Getaway Ps2, What Is Sardinia Piedmont, Pink Aerosmith Chords, Nestlé Uk, Lac De Joux Ice Skating, The Show Must Go On Netflix Review, Dreams And Nightmares, Singles Trips To Switzerland, Smile Bank News, Lee County Ms Population, Galt High School Calendar 2020-2021, Flames Restaurant Brockton, Ma, Bob West Texas, What Is Colleen Zenk Doing Now, Yorkshire Coasters, Golduck Mega Evolution,