Re: [Phys-l] Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

As I understand it, in Formal Logic, a circular argument is not ipso 
facto, invalid.

I quote:    "First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious.
 Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions,
*p*_1 , *p*_2 ,..., *p*_n are equivalent by arguing as follows
 (where "*p* => *q*" means that *p* implies *q*):

*p*_1 => *p*_2 => ... => *p*_n => *p*_1

Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of 
argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all 
equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a 
circle?..."

 [found here]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html


Brian W


On 12/17/2010 12:31 PM, Dr. Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno wrote:
> This is circular thinking.
>
> Arnulfo Castellanos Moreno
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] En nombre de
> Spinozalens@aol.com
>
> Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics
> Authors: _Jurjen F.  Koksma_
> (http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Koksma_J/0/1/0/all/0/1) , _Tomislav
> Prokopec_
> (http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Prokopec_T/0/1/0/all/0/1) , _Michael
> G.  Schmidt_
> (http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Schmidt_M/0/1/0/all/0/1)
> Comments: 25 pages, 13  figures
> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); General Relativity and  Quantum
> Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
> We study decoherence in a simple quantum mechanical model using two
> approaches. /snip/