Re: Two EPR questions
From: Ralph Hartley (hartley_at_aic.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: 10/13/04
- Next message: Joe Rongen: "Re: photodetector coincidence or anticoincidence ?"
- Previous message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: Connes & Marcolli paper on renormalization"
- In reply to: rof_at_maths.tcd.ie: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: Patrick Van Esch: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:13:36 +0000 (UTC)
rof@maths.tcd.ie wrote:
> the possibility that the wavefunction
> might describe knowledge
There is a sense in which that is a reasonable view.
But "knowledge" isn't *exactly* the right word. What it really describes is
what knowledge you *could* have.
The formulation of QM in terms of density matrices expresses things a
little bit better, since it has a representation for ignorance (mixed
states), but it still doesn't quite capture the sense in which the state
describes *objective* knowledge.
The distinction exists (and is essentially the same) in classical
probability theory.
Probabilities can be be used to describe knowledge (or belief), but they
have an objective existence as well.
Consider a gambler about to make a bet on a roll in a Craps game. He may
believe that the probability of winning is 50%, but there is a *real*
probability as well (quite likely much lower).
Ralph Hartley
- Next message: Joe Rongen: "Re: photodetector coincidence or anticoincidence ?"
- Previous message: Arnold Neumaier: "Re: Connes & Marcolli paper on renormalization"
- In reply to: rof_at_maths.tcd.ie: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Next in thread: Patrick Van Esch: "Re: Two EPR questions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|