I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I’m feeling extra geeky and I’m trying to reduce everything down to Jack’s magic bean.
Probability and provability are not one and the same.
The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.
I still haven’t heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?
And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn’t it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?
I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?
If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.
I’ve come to the conclusion that:
#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.
#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.
i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.
I tend to just avoid identity fetishes, symmetry fetishes, and structural fetishes. Structural fetishes bite me from time to time but only when I’m feeling extra geeky and I’m trying to reduce everything down to Jack’s magic bean.
Probability and provability are not one and the same.
The dependency of both collapse and many world on the design of the experiment makes me very fidgetty. Also the fact that QM keeps dodging the question of what goes on at the filter/splitter/polarizer bugs the bejeezus out of me. You would think one the multilapse twin theories could create the probabilities from subspaces existing at the decision boundary. That would impress me.
I still haven’t heard why your counterpart has to be you. Why not one of the rats of NIMH?
And since there are multiple entanglements wouldn’t it be necessary to make every part, the polarizer, the detector, and the photon superpose?
I always try to attack a problem from where it tickles. Can a macromechanical system be built such that without any modification of the photon substitute or the polarizer substitute the results would match the micro scale results?
If so then just shine a light on that sucker while it does its business.
I’ve come to the conclusion that:
#1 the use of amplitudes and complex numbers is really an unholy marriage between logic and arithmetic. The structure of multiplying by imaginary numbers and adding resembles logical arguments rather than a mysterious quantum recipe.
#2 the use of complex numbers implies the encoding of two interdependent variables into one construct like the way you can replace i with t in RC circuit equations. Soon as you do that you get a time dependent value for the voltage.
i by definition when squared transforms one variable (or member of a vector/quaternion/octonion) into its neighboring term without the usual fuss of inverting equations. just square and subtract or reduce to restore the form you are seeking.