Ruth\'s \"real\" possibilities (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:23 (4132 days ago) @ rekastner

RUTH: A short answer to dhw's concern about the distinction between my physically real quantum possibiities and other notions of possibility, such as ideas in the mind, is that the former are describable by quantum states, and are capble of being physically created and manipulated, while other merely conceivable things (such as Quine's 'possible fat man in the doorway') are not.-I remain confused! Firstly, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by quantum possibilities "are describable by quantum states". Secondly, your quantum possibilities can only become "real" through a transaction, i.e. an encounter between emitter and absorber. How is this different from the example I gave, in which my idea (or "conceivable thing") of a house (emission) is taken up by Richard Rogers (absorption) and physically created?
 
RUTH: QM seems to instruct us that there are indeed different levels of possibility. Nonrelativistic QM states are at one level ('real particles'), while field propagators ('virtual particles') are at a more subtle level.-My problem here is not different levels of possibility, but different levels of reality. My love for my wife and children is as real to me as the house I live in, but the former is non-physical and the latter physical. The claim that a quantum POTENTIAL is "more real than mere thoughts or imaginings or conceivable events" (your Section 7.2) seems to me to cry out for a yardstick by which you measure reality. The only one you appear to be offering is physicality. Please don't get me wrong. I don't understand the world of QM or, more importantly for me, its relevance to and impact on the world I live in, and am eager to have it explained to me. But all I can do as an ignorant layman is point to those areas of your theory that are not clear to me.