On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html: contains link to a free PDF > download, and otherwise links to paid versions (eg dead tree, Kindle). > > You want appendix D. > > Also see http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001020 > > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:00:13PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > On 3 March 2015 at 14:54, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's available for free on Russell's website. That part is only a few > > > pages long, I am still trying to understand it myself, but I think it > could > > > be one of the most significant breakthroughs in science if it's sound. > > > > > > > Shucks. I don't know it is that significant. A fair bit of it was > already known, just not put together in that way. > Well it seem to come as close to extracting QM from first principals as anything else. Together with Bruno's result that all observations are explained from the assumption of arithmetic and computationalism, what else is missing? Bruno says much work has to be done to show that the Universal Dovetailer leads to a physics like the one we know, but your work seems to get us a substantial part of the way there. I'm curious to hear Bruno's thoughts on this. > > As for soundness, the mathematical parts are fairly simple (within the > range of someone with first year uni linear algebra knowledge, for > example), so I doubt there is a real problem there. > The notation seems to be what I'm having the most trouble with, but it gets easier each time I re-read it. I'll need to write some notes and try and translate it along the way. > > More the issue is what it all means. What does it mean for the set of > observers to have a complex valued measure? Why not a more general > measure (like Banach space measures)? Or does it not really matter - > eg it is not possible to experimentally distinguish a complex measure > from a more general one. > Yes that seems to be the strangest part about it. Is it something you had to assume to get this result? You said it was the most general measure where the math worked out. Could it be that the more general it is the more degrees of freedom it enables, so there are that many more observers? Could the missing piece of the puzzle be explaining why computationalism yields a complex measure for observer moments? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
