Re: Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

From: Hal Ruhl <>
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

The universe I think is really quite simply described.

Model at:


At 10/26/00, you wrote:
>Bruno writes in the article Computation, Consciousness and the Quantum (
>``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:
> <>
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