Peterdjones comments on Mixed Reference: The Great Reductionist Project - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (353)
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!
In fact, you see macroscopic pointer readings. That is an important point, since Many Worlders think that the superposition disappers with macroscopic decoehrence.
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.
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.