On 03 Mar 2015, at 03:42, Jason Resch wrote:
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.
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some step, assuming the reals,
derivative, effectivity, etc. It go in the right conceptual direction,
(from the comp perspective).
What is really missing, but for good reason, is the fact that even if
correct, all the assumptions (sometimes implicit or argued too much
quickly) must be re-extracted from self-reference, once we assume
computationalism, so as to be able to benefit from the Gödel-Solovay
split of the points of view. This is needed for the mind-body problem.
We can come back on this later. You might search on Lucien Hardy, as
it gave a similar derivation, assuming perhaps less probability axioms
than Russell. I read that a long time ago, so I am not sure. I should
reread Russel's one too. I am no more sure if the explantion of the
square amplitude is equivalent with Everett, or Finkelstein one.
Knot theory by itself might explain the quantum, as invariant of knots
can looks similar to quantum invariants. This has lead to quantum
group theory (they are not group). The quantum, and even string theory
seems below a lot of discovery in Number Theory, but this go quickly
highly technical.
Only using self-reference, and the reversal, allows to get the
communicable and non communicable parts.
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?
I think the complex numbers are needed to have destructive
interference capable of minimizing the phase of the "white rabbits"
from their randomization.
But this leads to some difficult questions. In the limit, (assuming
something about the X1* logics) the emergence of the physical might
look like a percolation process, comparing the math.
Lot of works needs to be done, that's for sure.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
