Re: Theory of Nothing

From: Russell Standish <lists.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:54:07 +1000

----- Forwarded message from Russell Standish <hpcoder.domain.name.hidden> -----

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:18:59 +1000
From: Russell Standish <hpcoder.domain.name.hidden>
To: Ricardo Aler <aler.domain.name.hidden>
Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing
In-Reply-To: <43ed4f2b0705220253h7ee40345s14b375f5c56081cb.domain.name.hidden>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:53:53AM +0200, Ricardo Aler wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
>
> Yes. However, you are trying to derive QM from first principles, so
> it's a little unfair to use experimental results as well :). Also,

No - first principles would say complex measure is more likely than a
real measure. All the experimental results say is that there is no
need to go looking for an extra principle to impose a real measure.

> when counting the number of observers, it seems more natural to use a
> real measure.

Not much of a reason...

>
> But it would be wonderful if it could be shown that the existence of
> life requires complex measures (which is very likely true).
>

Its the other way around - the existence of life does not require a
real measure.

>
> >> Finally, do you think that entanglement is a direct consequence of
> >> your theory of observation?
> >
> >Yes, in that entanglement is a direct consequence of the mathematical
> >formulation of QM, which follows (at least if I'm correct :) ) from my
> >assumptions. However, trying to see how this might be so intuitively
> >without going through the maths route is tough.
>
> Yes, but I mean, does entanglement depend on using a complex measure
> or another extra assumption not directly based on your theory of
> observation (for instance, the correspondence principle is not based
> on your theory of observation either, but on Vic Stenger's Minkowskian
> space argument).

I don't believe entangled states depend on the correspondence
principle, but I have to admit that bread-and-butter QM calculations
are not my usual line of work.

>
> >Good questions Ricardo. I've taken the liberty of posting this
> >response to the everything-list and to avoid-L, as the points you
> >raise are of general interest.
>
> Yes please. I belonged to the avoid-l many years ago, until I realized
> that I was dedicating more time to it than I should :). I guess Jim
> Humphreys must still be there and converted to atheism :). Say hi to
> Vic Stenger.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Ricardo.
> -------------
> mailto: "Ricardo Aler Mur" <ricardo.aler.domain.name.hidden>
> http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/INF/aler

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue May 22 2007 - 19:39:55 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST