Re: QM

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:35:15 EDT

Hey guys, I am back, just a little case of retinal detachment fixed by hi
tech. One little problem. I was allegic to the antibiotic drops... I am ok
now, just very busy, trying to catch up.

In a message dated 06/24/2000 7:03:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

> 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.

Yep, we are hunting wabbits instead of the Tyrannosaurus Wex.
 Well, we must start somewhere. But it is fun.

How about casting the SE with Psi as a relative quantity just like position
or velocity? In other words we would be always talking about Delta Psi = Psi1
- Psi0 rather then absolute Psi, where Psi0 would correspond to the
(coordinate system of the) observer. This would be the logical continuation
of MWI thinking. As Tegmark pointed out, testing this equation by
experimenting with the observer Psi would put the life of the experimenter in
danger. Any way out of this?


George
Received on Tue Jul 11 2000 - 10:41:32 PDT