Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Of course, the only flaw in the argument is that a cat isn't a particle, 
> so what effects *one* particle, doesn't effect something made of a *lot* 
> of them. 

Why not?  Indeed, that *is* the flaw in the argument, but the question is 
"why not?"

> This is the absurdity involved. Its like asking why relativity 
> doesn't work in black holes. Because its a bloody black hole, which has 
> different rules. 

Relativity works just fine in black holes. That's why we know about them.

> In effect, QM is what goes on in single instances, 

Single instances of what?

> normal reality is an emergent property of what happens when QM can't 
> (or, if you prefer, the constraints put on the system reduce the 
> probability of a different result to near zero).

Like what, in the case of the cat, specifically?  A different result from 
being alive or dead?

> Same with particle interactions. Right?

You tell me. You seem to have it all figured out so trivially.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message