- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:11:12 +0100

Trying to derive SE from AUH is like trying to derive 'Jacques Mallah' from

AUH.

It's very easy: all universes exists, so some thoughts of the cleass "the SE

is -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi" exist.

Some thoughts of the class "why is the SE -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi" also

exist - and by WAP we shouldn't wonder why we *are* (not think, but are)

such a thought. If we weren't, we wouldn't wonder it...

James

*> -----Original Message-----
*

*> From: Jacques Mallah [SMTP:jackmallah.domain.name.hidden]
*

*> Sent: Sunday, 25 June, 2000 3:02 AM
*

*> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
*

*> Subject: Re: QM
*

*>
*

*> >From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
*

*> >jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
*

*> > > jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
*

*> > > QM is the laws of physics that best explains what we see. I
*

*> think
*

*> >that says it all. I should point out that there is really no summation
*

*> >involved, especially not a sum over worlds. There is just -i hbar d/dt
*

*> psi
*

*> >= H psi.
*

*> > > Of course, you could write psi as a sum of orthogonal functions and
*

*> you
*

*> >could choose nearly decoherent such functions.
*

*> > > In the computationalist view, there is a wavefunction, and it
*

*> >implements computations. These implementations may resemble those that
*

*> >would be produced by classical mechanics, modified by interference terms
*

*> >that may be small.
*

*> >
*

*> >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?
*

*>
*

*> If you mean to derive it from the AUH (+ computationalism), I don't
*

*> blame you for wanting that. That's the holy grail. It would be one of
*

*> the
*

*> greatest intellectual achievements in all of human history. The Nobel
*

*> Prize
*

*> would be the least of it. Don't hold your breath.
*

*> I wouldn't be mucking around with trying to measure wabbittiness if I
*

*> could derive the SE from the AUH. As it is, the best I think is practical
*

*>
*

*> is trying to predicts things like wabbittiness, and to argue that the SE
*

*> *could* be what a typical observer-moment in the AUH would see. We expect
*

*>
*

*> the observation to be consistent with apparent laws of physics that are
*

*> relatively simple, in a universe that is computationally deep. (See the
*

*> discussion Wei Dai and I had soon after I joined this list.) Getting more
*

*>
*

*> specific is hard.
*

*> As for positivism, what you say is false. Even if (as I did *not*
*

*> say),
*

*> the SE is not derivable from the AUH, that's not a positivist statement.
*

*> A
*

*> positivist would say there is really no SE in existance, but we can use
*

*> the
*

*> SE to make predictions.
*

*>
*

*> >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?
*

*>
*

*> Don't misquote me. I said it could be written in terms of nearly
*

*> decoherent functions. On that 'nearly' hangs interference, the basic
*

*> property of QM and our main defense against the 'collapse' idea.
*

*> 'Individual worlds' - a matter of definition. "Many worlds" is a
*

*> great
*

*> way of describing QM - until the details start to matter, in which case
*

*> those words can cause as much confusion as enlightenment.
*

*> I don't know what ideas L&K have.
*

*>
*

*> > > You still don't know what computationalism means? It means that
*

*> >certain computations give rise to consciousness. It does not explain
*

*> >behavior at all, and does not allow zombies
*

*> >
*

*> >It seems that you need to be more precise. Computationalism ASSUMES that
*

*> >certain computations give rise to consciousness. It does not EXPLAIN
*

*> >consciousness. And without a third person/ first person theory you can
*

*> only
*

*> >talk about behaviors as observed from a third person point of view
*

*> without
*

*> >ever describing what it is to be (yourself) conscious.
*

*>
*

*> You say assumes, I said asserts. Whatever. True, computationalism
*

*> makes no claim about *why* computations are conscious. There are two
*

*> schools of thought about why: reductionism and dualism. Both are
*

*> compatible
*

*> with computationalism.
*

*> Reductive computationalism is the belief that consciousness is nothing
*

*>
*

*> more than computation. Obviously, if this could be proven, it would not
*

*> have to compete with the rival school. That is obvious, isn't it?
*

*> You can certainly talk about consciousness, though. And
*

*> computationalism explicitly, and by definition, does talk about it.
*

*> But as for describing what it's like *qualitatively*, that's
*

*> impossible.
*

*> Language cannot convey that regardless of your ideology.
*

*> Well, I hope you soon see the light (in more ways than one). Get well
*

*>
*

*> soon.
*

*>
*

*> >From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
*

*> >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 you know Russell, I find your "derivation" of the SE quite wanting.
*

*>
*

*> As far as conservation of probability, it is not obvious that measure
*

*> should
*

*> be conserved as a function of time. In fact, measure is not strictly
*

*> conserved.
*

*> The i is there to make the equation simpler to write. Of course one
*

*> could write it in terms of real quantities only, such as amplitude and
*

*> phase.
*

*>
*

*> >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.
*

*>
*

*> This one you got right. Of course, one could ask about the
*

*> dimensionless 'constants' of physics, and make an anthropic principle
*

*> argument.
*

*>
*

*> - - - - - - -
*

*> Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
*

*> Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
*

*> "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
*

*> My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
*

*>
*

*> ________________________________________________________________________
*

*> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
*

Received on Mon Jun 26 2000 - 02:17:02 PDT

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:11:12 +0100

Trying to derive SE from AUH is like trying to derive 'Jacques Mallah' from

AUH.

It's very easy: all universes exists, so some thoughts of the cleass "the SE

is -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi" exist.

Some thoughts of the class "why is the SE -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi" also

exist - and by WAP we shouldn't wonder why we *are* (not think, but are)

such a thought. If we weren't, we wouldn't wonder it...

James

Received on Mon Jun 26 2000 - 02:17:02 PDT

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