AI and cognitive psychology rant (getting more and more OT - tell me if I should shut up)

[Michele Simionato]

Stephen Horne <steve at ninereeds.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<b1d9qvogqc424j0rkr00kq0lk4hdlj29id at 4ax.com>...
> OK - but if you are describing superfluidity as a single macroscopic
> effect then you must describe it within a macroscopic framework. At
> which point it has nothing to do with quantum effects because it isn't
> within a quantum framework - it is just that the macroscopic
> phenomenon called electricity (distinct from electrons moving en
> masse) is not subject to the macroscopic phenomenon called resistance
> (distinct from energy loss through the electomagnetic interactions
> between electrons and atoms en masse) when the macroscopic phenomenon
> called temperature (distinct from the kinetic energy of atoms en
> masse) is sufficiently low.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this per se - it is the limit of most
> peoples (mine included) understanding of superconductivity - but it
> has nothing to do with the framework of quantum mechanics.
> 

I am sure I am misreading you again, but the equation is not
microscopic=quantum, macroscopic=classical. It can be very
well quantum=macroscopic. For instance, there is no classical
theory able to describe superfluidity, it must be quantum.
If I am misreading you again, let's say that I am doing this
remark for the other readers here ;)

                 Michele