tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post2692096226055164970..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Degrees of location?Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-51410382618523989572016-08-22T14:30:36.968-05:002016-08-22T14:30:36.968-05:00Maybe. I don't know. It seems like the whole t...Maybe. I don't know. It seems like the whole theory is predicated on particular experimental results (viz, positions on pointers), so the only reason we're even talking about the possible interpretations (including degreed locations) is because we want to explain these results. If we don't actually get those results (because every piece of every point is actually only sort-of located where it is), doesn't that saw off the branch that the theory was resting on?<br /><br />It's like with "Flashy" GRW or Albert's "Many Minds"... If the world we believe in doesn't exist, then why are we trying to explain the constitution of that world... especially in terms of parts that don't actually align they need to in order to construct the world being explained?Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-37413562061093642132016-08-22T13:47:56.125-05:002016-08-22T13:47:56.125-05:00All you need is that the pointers have their parti...All you need is that the pointers have their particular locations *to a very high degree*, I think.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-70658214317560366842016-08-22T11:57:05.618-05:002016-08-22T11:57:05.618-05:00Aside from our intuitions, there's the matter ...Aside from our intuitions, there's the matter of exactly what experimental data we think we have, which leads us to postulate all these different physical theories of quantum mechanics in the first place. If the point or ink dot or computer pixel isn't actually in the specific location we perceive it to be in, then we don't actually have the data we think we have, and thus anything we think we've confirmed experimentally about quantum mechanics is (at least) suspect. John Bell often talked about this: How can you embrace a metaphysics in which the fundamental pieces have no location, when you are counting on pointers and printouts and laboratories and researchers (all of which are built from these fundamental pieces) to have particular locations?Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-49100797850796906232016-08-22T10:59:43.934-05:002016-08-22T10:59:43.934-05:00Why think larger objects have locations that are n...Why think larger objects have locations that are not degreed?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-66824194294925807232016-08-22T10:25:29.847-05:002016-08-22T10:25:29.847-05:00Are there not metaphysical problems to any of thes...Are there not metaphysical problems to any of these options if we add that larger objects have locations which are not "degreed", even though they are constructed of all these "location-degreed" particles?Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-80034284452107113132016-08-22T10:25:07.429-05:002016-08-22T10:25:07.429-05:00On the other hand, it seems to be possible for a p...On the other hand, it seems to be possible for a particle to have a precise single-point location (the wavefunction would be a delta function; I don't think any realistic measurement could produce this outcome, though, so maybe we could say it's physically impossible??). If so, the restriction to regular open sets doesn't work. Maybe better: If the integral of the square of the modulus of the normalized wavefunction over a region R is 1, then by law the particle is wholly present within the closure of R. And when the integral of the square of the modulus of the normalized wavefunction over a region R is 0, then by the law the particle is wholly absent from the interior of R. Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-17698630213477807972016-08-20T19:00:55.152-05:002016-08-20T19:00:55.152-05:00Oh yes, very reasonable. I was just adding the (no...Oh yes, very reasonable. I was just adding the (not very interesting extension) that a thing is at no particular place in the sense that if it is in R it is in R-{x} i.e. the probability for any particular outcome for a continuous random variable is zero, with the extension from {x} to a set of measure zero. If we are talking about 'regions' in any meaningful sense it probably makes good sense to exclude such weird stuff. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02517431879996456707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-16855218325417419572016-08-20T18:25:09.894-05:002016-08-20T18:25:09.894-05:00In option 3, I assumed that the law of nature was ...In option 3, I assumed that the law of nature was restricted to the case where R was "nice", and I offered the suggestion that "nice" might mean equal to the interior of the closure (= "regular open"). The only dense subset of R that is equal to the interior of its closure is R itself.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-49431467770052661752016-08-20T16:47:30.057-05:002016-08-20T16:47:30.057-05:00Surely paragraph three is even worse, I can choose...Surely paragraph three is even worse, I can choose a countably dense subset of measure zero in R and find that the particle is not in it. That seems truly perverse to me. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02517431879996456707noreply@blogger.com