Peterdjones comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 05 December 2012 12:26AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (353)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Peterdjones 13 December 2012 05:42:35PM *  0 points [-]

They aren't intuitive molds, in the system-1 sense; 'particle' and 'wave' are theoretical constructs

I think that is pretty much the wrong way round. The only way you can model a dimensionless particle in QM is as a diract delta function, but they are mathematically intractible (with a parallel argument applying to pure waves), so in a sens there are no particles or waves in QM, and whatever w/p dualism is, it is not a dualism of sharply defined opposites, as would be implied by Bohr's yin-yang symbol!

. But in fact I seem to either see spin-up or spin-down, not both.

In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic decoehrence.

Comment author: RobbBB 13 December 2012 08:50:12PM *  0 points [-]

The only way you can model a dimensionless particle in QM is as a [dirac] delta function

I wasn't specifically assuming dimensionless particles. Classical atoms could be modeled particulately without being points, provided each can be picked out by a fixed position and a momentum.

In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic [decoherence].

Yes, this distinction is very important for BM too. For example, BM actually fails the empirical adequacy test if you treat 'spin-up' and 'spin-down' as measurable properties of particles.