>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.
James, I'm afraid you are confusing geography and physics.
Physics describe invariants about our most probable continuations.
You put SE in geography. It would then be a contingent fact that SE.
To believe it is possible to derive SE from some AUH is to belief
that SE correctly and (concisely) capture what remains true in
*all* continuations. A law is something true in `all most probable
continuations'.
(In particular, a way to derive SE from the computationnalist hypothesis
is to derive SE from the stable discourse by self-referentially
correct UTM on their most probable consistent extensions.
A not so easy mathematical problem.
(cf
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal)).
> If we weren't, we wouldn't wonder it...
I agree ontologicaly, but epistemologicaly, it is only partially
relevant.
Bruno
Received on Tue Jun 27 2000 - 03:08:47 PDT