RE: Equivalence

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:41:28 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rmiller [mailto:rmiller.domain.name.hidden]
>Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:59 PM
>To: Stephen Paul King; everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: Equivalence
>
>
>At 11:27 AM 6/3/2005, rmiller wrote:
>>At 10:23 AM 6/3/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>Dear R.,
>>>
>>> You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
>>> failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
>>> compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this,
>>> what remains? Your suggestion seems to imply that "precognition,
>>> coincidence and "synchronicity"" are some form "resonance" between
>>> decohered QM systems. Could it be that decoherence is not an "all or
>>> nothing" process; could it be that some 'parts' of a QM system decohere
>>> with respect to each other while others do not and/or that decoherence
>>> might occur at differing rates within a QM system?
>>>
>>>Stephen
>>
>>Yes, that's what I am suggesting. The rates may remain constant---i.e.
>>less than a few milliseconds (as Patrick L. earlier noted) however, I
>>suspect there is a topology where regions of decoherence coexist and
>>border regions of coherence.

Coherence is assumed to always remain, since QM evolution is unitary. It just
gets entangled with the environment so there is no practical way to detect it.
Just google "decoherence Zeh".

>>An optics experiment might be able to test
>>this (if it hasn't been done already), and it might be experimentally
>>testable as a psychology experiment.\\
>
>More to the point---Optical experiments in QM often return counterintuitive
>results, but they support the QM math (of course). No one has
>satisfactorily resolved the issue of measurement to everyone's liking, but
>most would agree that in some brands of QM consciousness plays a role. On
>one side we have Fred Alan Wolf and Sarfatti who seem to take the "qualia"
>approach, while on the other side we have those like Roger Penrose who (I
>think) take a mechanical view (microtubules in the brain harbor
>Bose-Einstein condensates.) All this model-building (and discussion) is
>fine, of course, but there are a number of psychological experiments out
>there that consistently return counterintuitive and heretofore
>unexplainable results.

And they consistently fail when someone tries to replicate them or have them
performed so as to eliminate fraud and self-deception.

Brent Meeker
Received on Fri Jun 03 2005 - 23:32:51 PDT