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

by David Turell , Thursday, August 01, 2013, 17:12 (4133 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Theoretically, though, given all the necessary information, I suppose any outcome is predictable, even for concepts and subjective feelings. The question is whether we have all the necessary information. 
> I do hope you can understand why I still find your original statement and subsequent explanations concerning the reality of quantum potentials confusing, and I hope my confusion is not making too many demands on your patience!-I may have memory trouble at my age, but I understand your confusion. Yes, I did read all of Ruth's material and forgot absorption, but I can't learn now like I did in medical school, snapping everything up like a sponge.-What I understand and it is amazing: Heisenberg described the quantum level as potentialities and probabilities. Yet the equations they use work! They are averages of the probabilities of all the potential particles ( which are particles by the Coppenhagen convention), even though they are really not particles but disturbances in fields. Feynman invented renormalization by crossing out all the infinities. Like taking a meat ax to complex math (!), but it works. -In a sense your confusion is everyone's confusion. Ruth's approach is exciting to me because it makes sense as a new way to try and understand the quantum level in a more reasonable way.