Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:25:13 +1000 (EST)

GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
>
> OK, the Shoedinger equation is -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi, Why? Why does the
> equation have an imaginary form? What is the meaning of Planck's constant it
> the CONTEXT of the MWI? Just saying, as you do, that the SE is what it is
> just because, is adopting the same POSITIVIST attitude as the Copenhagen
> school. I am looking for the INTERPRETATION of this equation in terms of the
> MW. Is it possible to derive this equation from a PURELY COMPUTATIONALIST
> APPROACH?
>
> You say that psi can be written in terms of orthogonal (decoherent)
> functions. Are those functions equivalent to the individual worlds in the MW?
> If so, then we certainly have the ability to be affected by several such
> worlds simultaneously because of the phenomenon of superposition. What does
> this say about consciousness? Does consciousness have "thickness" across the
> MW? How does this fit with the ideas of Lewis and Kriepke?
>

George, I understand that you're having a bit of a dig at Jacques,
however my Occam paper gives an answer to your question. I am
currently revising it to make the argument more accessible.

Basically, the i in the equation is to ensure that the Hamiltonian is
hermitian, which is required by the law of conservation of probability
(d/dt (psi* psi))=0. This latter law is simply the statement that the
axiom saying the probability of the certain event is 1, and shall
remain so for all time.

As for the value of hbar, this is to fix a rather arbitrary set of
units we happened to choose to measure the world in. If we did
everything in terms of Planck units, hbar=1.

I don't think anyone else has come up with a "derivation" of the
Schroedinger equation, without some outlandish assumptions. That
doesn't mean there isn't an alternative explanation. Your right to say
positivism is passing the buck. Let me put the boot in and say I don't
believe computationalism (as it appears to be used in this group) is
actually consistent with this at all!

                                                Cheers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Jun 21 2000 - 18:19:51 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST