Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Particles (was Re: Propensities and MWI)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Goodwin
    ... couch to ... my eye, ... least as ... My take on this is that there are no actual particles involved. There is, instead, an event where the wave triggers a
    Message 1 of 306 , Jul 31, 2009
      Worried William wrote:

      > According to MWI (wave form), while the light is travelling from the
      couch to
      > my eye, it is in the form of non-particulate waves. But when it hits
      my eye,
      > (or other detector), it does so in the form of particles, or at
      least as
      > quantised whatever-they-are. So ARE these quantum whatevers already
      > "inside" the wave, just before reaching my eye, or are they NOT?

      My take on this is that there are no actual particles involved. There is,
      instead, an event where the wave triggers a particular detector, e.g. it
      excites a specific atom. The detector is localised, so it seems intuitively
      that something small has impinged on it - we get a dot on a photographic
      plate, or something that looks as though it was created by something small
      and "particulate". But (according to the MWI, and assuming my view has any
      truth in it) this is effectively an illusion, because the wave actually
      interacts with *all* the atoms on the photographic plate, but the branches
      of the multiverse in which these other events occur aren't visible to us.

      So a "particle" is a sort of representation of the fact that we can't see
      more than one slice of the multiverse.

      (Perhaps... :-)

      Charles
    • Maurice Guernier
      ... Yes, but they both get one vote each. ... Agreed. I don t believe any form of democracy, direct or representative, is a silver bullet for protecting
      Message 306 of 306 , Nov 22, 2009
        --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Sep 16, 2009, at 12:50 AM, inntranz wrote:
        >
        > > Apathy is the enemy of direct democracy, but IMHO apathy gets more criticism than it deserves. Life is short and one man's apathy is another man's well balanced set of priorities.
        >
        >
        > The situation is better than that.
        >
        > These two men who see it differently don't have equally relevant perspectives.

        Yes, but they both get one vote each.

        >
        > What matters is the man whose life it is, not the man with intrusive preferences about other people.
        >
        > Opposing the apathy of *other people*, in any strong or forceful way, is opposing freedom.

        Agreed.
        I don't believe any form of democracy, direct or representative, is a silver bullet for protecting freedom. On the other hand, the freedom to be apathetic seems one of the least likely to come under threat.

        Like Charles and Bill, I live in New Zealand where the issue of direct democracy has suddenly become topical. In fact, this very weekend it literally had people marching in the streets.
        (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10610869)

        A decade or so ago the government introduced a system of "non-binding citizen-initiated referenda". Topics covered over the years have included employment conditions for firemen, the number of MPs in parliament, harsher penalties for crime, and whether parents should be allowed to physically punish their children.
        As far as I recall, the government has ignored the result of every referendum so far.

        That it has taken us over a decade to take to the streets over this shows that apathy is a subject on which we are qualified to speak.

        >
        > Note: this applies to one's children.

        The issue that finally got people protesting was that the right to hit their kids had been taken away from them. What to make of that, I'm not so sure.

        Maurice
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.