Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?



rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>>Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>>rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>I may have confused the official Copenhagen interpretation with
>>>what Bohr, Heisenberg, von Neumann and so on believed. As Scerir
>>>pointed out in this thread, Heisenberg said "The discontinuous change
>>>in the probability function, however, takes place with the act
>>>of registration, because it is the discontinuous change
>>>of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its
>>>image in the discontinuous change of the probability function.",
>>>Hiesenberg, "Physics and Philosophy", 1958
>
>>I commented that already. the 'acto of registration' happens on the
>>photographic plate or in the eye, not in the mind, and is simply
>>the irreversible magnification due to dissipation by interaction with
>>a macroscopic detector. It is objective and has no connection to
>>any 'knowledge'.
>
>>... only that your interpretation of what he said in terms of
>>knowledge is a postmodern interpretation, and either the
>>Copenhagen interpretation nor Heisenberg's intention.
>
> Heisenberg said "it is the discontinuous change of our knowledge
> in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous
> change of the probability function."

This is in a 1958 essay for the general public, not in a paper on the
foundations of quantum mechanics. I don't read 'the first three minutes'
or 'a short history of time' to find out about interpretation issues
in relativity. Similarly, Heisenberg's book is not representative of
the Copenhagen interpretation.

The reprint collection
J.A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek,
Quantum theory and measurement.
Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 1983.
contains 49 papers, only one of them by Heisenberg. It is from 1927
and shows nothing of the subjectivist view of the late Heisenberg.


> of what he said. Then you accused me of having a distorted
> interpretation because I took Heisenberg at his word, and
> proceeded to insult me by calling my interpretation postmodern.

You are too easily insulted. First by three question marks, now by
the word postmodern. And you don't hesitate to insult others by
distance diagnosing them of mental illness...


>>>with the mental disease that I
>>>ranted about in an earlier post:
>>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/69ca190957f25c12?dmode=source
>
>>This is a long post, I cannot recognize myself reflected in it.
>>Neither do I recognize signs of a mental disease in my behavior.
>
> It is extremely rare that one spots a mental disease in oneself,
> but let me assure you that you are a textbook case.

While you may be a competent physicist I doubt your expertise at
medical diagnosis.

And since my time is limited and I prefer to discuss with polite people
and about physics rather than psychology, I'll discontinue this discussion.


Arnold Neumaier

.