|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |