On 18 Nov 2003, at 2:41 pm, Dan Minette wrote:
The reality of QM is that it is a systematic set of rules and equations
that provide a good fit to observation. Computational methods allow us to
use things like perturbation theory to obtain predictions that would have
been impossible to obtain 100 years ago, even if the algorithms were clear.
So, computaiton is very worthwhile there.
Using Comp. Sci images to interpret QM is legitimate; but by definition
this is doing metaphysics, not physics.
But that could be turned into a program, and then it wouldn't be metaphysics...
So, if someone wanted to do this, then it would be interesting to see the systematic interpreation and compare it to MWI, Copenhaugen, etc.
As an aside, by definition, Comp. Sci is based on non-so-hidden underlying
variables, which can fully be expressed in another system. Physics hidden
variable theories have been falsified. Does that help?
An OOP model wouldn't need the reality principle. It is meaningless to ask what a polymorphic OOP particle was when you weren't interacting with it.
And standard refactorings are 'Replace Parameter with Method', 'Replace Conditional with Polymorphism' and such to get rid of variables...
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
