by gill1109 » Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:33 pm
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:11 pm
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:12 am
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:51 am
To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.
There is no "debate".
Richard D. Gill cannot do math ... <SNIP>
As for "realism", it was defined by Einstein and Bell in the context of the Bohr-Einstein debate. Look it up. There is no debate regarding that either.
Joy,
1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.
2. But I'm seeking your definition of "realism".
3. When you say there is no debate re realism: I guess you are implying that Gill agrees with your definition?
.
Gordon: in the context of Bell-EPR and sticking to physics, “realism” is just a fancy word for determinism. I imagine that Joy and I agree on that. Joy thinks he can do math, and I can’t. I have the opposite opinion.
Now, in the many worlds interpretation, there is just the deterministic evolution of the wave equation. Our idea that things definitely happen is an illusion because all possibilities exist for ever in quantum superposition. The moon is there and it is not there, whether or not you look. Moreover, in some worlds you look and in some you don’t! In very many, you never even existed.
So the philosophical question is: what is real? It’s a different question from the question whether the laws of nature are deterministic or not.
Are you interested in physics or in philosophy?
[quote="Gordon Watson" post_id=692 time=1643699518 user_id=69]
[quote="Joy Christian" post_id=685 time=1643559153 user_id=63]
[quote="Gordon Watson" post_id=683 time=1643554269 user_id=69]
To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.
[/quote]
There is no "debate".
Richard D. Gill cannot do math ... <SNIP>
As for "realism", it was defined by Einstein and Bell in the context of the Bohr-Einstein debate. Look it up. There is no debate regarding that either.
[/quote]
Joy,
1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.
2. But I'm seeking your definition of "realism".
3. When you say there is no debate re realism: I guess you are implying that Gill agrees with your definition?
.
[/quote]
Gordon: in the context of Bell-EPR and sticking to physics, “realism” is just a fancy word for determinism. I imagine that Joy and I agree on that. Joy thinks he can do math, and I can’t. I have the opposite opinion.
Now, in the many worlds interpretation, there is just the deterministic evolution of the wave equation. Our idea that things definitely happen is an illusion because all possibilities exist for ever in quantum superposition. The moon is there and it is not there, whether or not you look. Moreover, in some worlds you look and in some you don’t! In very many, you never even existed.
So the philosophical question is: what is real? It’s a different question from the question whether the laws of nature are deterministic or not.
Are you interested in physics or in philosophy?