Re: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 23:31:11 -0700

I see it as a simple exercise to derive both quantum mechanics and
relativity on a discrete physical system that is isomorphic to a recursive
enumeration theorem cascade in an incomplete, finite, consistent Formal
Axiomatic System [ifc-FAS]. A cellular automaton if you will. However,
the incompleteness must be incrementally resolved which makes the system
discontinuously computational - i. e. non deterministic. In this view
information [relative] as measured by AIT program length [each such program
being the proof of an individual member of the cascade] monotonically
accumulates.

The universe I think is really quite simply described.

Model at: http://www.connix.com/~hjr/model01.html

Hal


At 10/26/00, you wrote:
>Bruno writes in the article Computation, Consciousness and the Quantum (
><http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/CC&Q.pdf>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/CC&Q.pdf
>)
>
>``All sufficiently realist interpretations of quantum mechanics accept the
>existence of parallel situations.
>
>I think that this is true for interpretations that assume that quantum
>mechanics is fundamental. However, 't Hooft has recently shown that it is
>possible to derive quantum mechanics from a certain class of deterministic
>models, avoiding the usual problems of hidden variables. In fact his
>theory doesn't treat particles as elements of physical reality at all.
>Particles only arise in the statistical treatment of the deterministic
>model. Therefore Bell's theorem doesn't apply. See:
>
><http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/quantloss/index.htm>http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/quantloss/index.htm
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0003005
>
> <http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9903084>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9903084
>
>Saibal
Received on Thu Oct 26 2000 - 20:39:59 PDT

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