Hi Marcus,
Yes, this gets to the nut of it for me:
> On Apr 10, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> Anyway, 't Hooft doesn't say QM is flawed, just that QM isn't an explanation.
> He makes the distinction between the value of his idea as an interpretation
> vs. the possibility it (C
't Hooft mentions the possible implications for quantum computing. This model
brings to mind the old lattice gas architecture designs as a possible
simulation approach.[1]
Also being interested in artificial atoms in a highly isolated environment
instead of "real" ones, some of the objections
I also found this post fascinating, Marcus, thank you.
T’Hooft has been on this program for a long time, and the whole thing mystifies
me. He’s a just-enormous mind, and very fastidious in what he considers
acceptable argument, so someone very much worth listening to.
But why does he think a c
There is a preprint from t'Hooft where he suggests that Quantum Mechanics
emerges from vacuum fluctuations. It could be something in this direction.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02019-J.
Original message From: Jochen Fromm Date:
4/10/21 00:51 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning
Interesting book. IMHO neither the weird rules of Quantum Mechanics nor the
Standard Model can be really fundamental. Why do we have 3 generations of
matter (electron, muon, tau & up/down, charm/strange, top/bottom quarks) and
not 1, 2 or 4? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeptonWhere do the stran
Yes, for me, it is that entanglement in a CA is consistent with my world. No
spooky action at a distance and without invoking much of any machinery to get
there.
When I was a child I loved taking things apart and in my teenage years spent a
lot of time disassembling codes. I liked the fe
't Hooft has been has a book on these topics.[1] He has papers periodically
like this one where he socializes the idea in different ways. The argument in
this paper is if there were fast background variables, in quantum experiments
like the double slit experiment, it could explain how these pr
Ha! OK. I'll try to read that. I read the abstract 4 times and still don't know
what I'm about to read. I read the introduction once and still don't know what
to expect. My next step is the Discussion, then the meat. If you care to toss a
bone, I'd appreciate it. But then again, you might be rew
Glen -
Excellent self-examination of your meaning of effigification and
effigy. I like the point of "reflective" models. It actually carries
some of the qualities in my version of "straw man" which is
*deliberately* weak, not so it can be torn down easily, but so nobody is
offended if it gets ra
Yeah, that's a good point. I was surreptitiously undermined at both the
dot-coms I worked for. At one of them, I confronted the guy I suspected of
doing so in a small meeting with his closest allies. He took that opportunity
to argue to his allies that I'd been "jockeying" for some higher rung i
I would separate been criticized in a fair way from being sideswiped, e.g. to a
boss, to peers, or in public. Yes some people can’t even handle having their
ego injured in private. But if someone is going after you in a way that can
hurt in a substantive way, then the one must consider a resp
Yes, I definitely consider them effigies. But I don't focus on the antipathy so
much as some sort of canon or prototype. You can do with it what you will once
you have that analog.
People often have a problem separating their *self* from their arguments. All
the lip service we give to avoiding
12 matches
Mail list logo
