Subject: Re: Beware of holons
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:23:26 +0000
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: sorina <sofiaw@netvision.net.il>
CC: peres@photon.technion.ac.il, shimony@bu.edu
BCC: [snip]

Dear Sofia,

Some history. On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 21:14:12 +0000, I wrote:

> Sofia dear,
>
> I will be delighted to learn your comments on the wave function.
> Let me
give you again the URL,
>
> http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bassi.html#NB

Your reply was that 90% from what I wrote at the URL above is wrong.

Again, I am respectfully urging you to provide the facts.

Regarding the Holon and the interpretation of "wave function" at the URL above: You may wish to read Abner Shimony on the actualization of potentialities,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Shimony.html#Shimony

and Yakir Aharonov ("This state corresponds to particular outcomes of all measurements in the future."),

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Anandan.html#2

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Kochen.html#1

Then please recall that the measurement problem has two 'ends', one is the mystery of "points" at the scale of tables and chairs [Ref. 1], the other is 'the wavefunction of the universe',

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bassi.html#preparation

Think of this as the English alphabet where 'a' stands for "points" and 'z' for 'the wavefunction of the universe'.

Your friend and teacher Asher does not like the notion of 'wavefunction of the universe' (see his book), but it's like saying 'I will use all the letters from the alphabet but not the last one, z, because it doesn't make sense anymore'. Of course it does not make sense (which is why I introduce the Holon), but ask him how one could rigorously avoid the notion of 'wavefunction of the universe' while talking about the "points" we get by measurement. If we are to drop the first and the last letters from the alphabet, because they "do not make sense", where do we go then?

I don't expect to hear from Asher and/or Abner because they are very busy. Asher wrote three years ago "I don't have pertinent comments", perhaps Abner doesn't have either. Read about their dialogue at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Peres.html#1

The good news is that you can settle this debate by proving that 90% from what I wrote at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bassi.html#NB

is wrong.

I'm very much eager to get the facts.

Thank you very much in advance.

Dimi
--

Reference

[Ref. 1] John C. Polkinghorne (2002), Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 144 pages, ISBN: 0192802526

[The book was warmly endorsed by Chris Isham and Jeremy Butterfield, so it's highly unlikely to contain errors. See the discussion of the measurement problem and the "knowledge" interpretation of the wave function adopted by Asher, regrettably.]
---
 

Note: Regarding the Holon, see the explanation of entanglement and the peaceful co-existence of QM with STR, p. 81 in [Ref. 1]: "It is as if a singer at  1  was singing a random series of notes and a singer at  2  was also singing a random series of notes and only if one were able to hear them both together would one realize that the two singers were in some kind of harmony with each other."

The kind of harmony here is Leibnitzian harmoniae praestabilitae (Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, Monadology, 78) due to Reichenbach's Common Cause Principle. In other words, the 'common cause' of the two singers is kept in the Holon. With our brain, we can certainly "hear them both together", only what we "hear" is UNspeakable. With inanimate measuring devices, however, we can't "hear" the entanglement, can't feel it, can't make any use of it.

Dimiter G. Chakalov
Tuesday, April 8, 2003