On 08-Sep-02, Russell Standish wrote:
> George Levy wrote:
> ...
>> As it stand, the comp hypothesis is only a philosophical
>> exercise because it does not reproduce the same phenomenon
>> as QM in particular the phenomenon of complementarity.
>> Therefore, to establish a meaningful relevance between comp
>> and QM we must show that such phenomena can be incorporated
>> in comp.
>> The following thought experiment is an attempt to illustrate
>> how complementarity can be incorporated into a duplication
>> experiment. This experiment raises some interesting
>> questions regarding the relationship between the scientific
>> MW and the philosopical plenitude.
>> Thought Experiment:
> ....
>> Questions
>> This thought experiment, attempt to provide a model of how
>> MW relates to the Comp hypothesis. Many questions arise. 1)
>> Why is it that the Plenitude is not directly accessed by QM
>> as explained by comp. Why is there a need for an
>> intermediate MW characterized by complementarity? 2) Why is
>> complementarity two-dimensional? Could it be
>> three-dimentional? or higher? 3) Is the two-dimensionality
>> of complementarity fact-like? Are there other worlds in the
>> Plenitude which have a complementarity with a higher
>> dimensionality?
>> 4) Is the MW only one instance in the Plenitude? How many
>> levels do we have to go from the scientifically determined
>> MW to the philosophically determined Plenitude?
>> 5) Is complementarity anthropically necessary?
>> This is only a feable attempt in the generation of a
>> physical model to relate comp to the MW. I hope that we can
>> improve on it through our discussions.
>> George
> I would like to point out that my "Why Occam's Razor" paper
> answers about 90% of your question (with the other 10% being
> the most difficult bit, or course :).
> Complementarity is a property of any two quantum operators
> that are related by the Fourier transform (x <-> id/dx). The
> proof is well known, and can be found (eg) in Shankar's book.
> That momentum is represented by derivative operator (P=id/dx)
> is called the correspondence principle, and is usually given
> as an axiom (see Shankar). Henry gave a "derivation" of this
> correspondence principle about 10 years ago, (Bruno kindly
> sent me a copy), but I believe his derivation is faulty. To
> date, I still gregard the correspondence principle as a
> mystery.
Have a look at
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Nothing/WhereLaws.pdf
> The other "axioms" of quantum mechanics can be derived from a
> simple model of observation (set out in Why Occams razor).
> Observers select an observation purely at random from an
> ensemble of choices, subject to the anthropic constraint.
> This is analogous to Darwinian evolution, where natural
> selection selects from natural variation. It is my
> supposition that this generalized evolutionary process is the
> only possible creative process - the only means of generating
> the complex (information rich) structures from the simple
> ones that are favoured in the Schmidhuber ensemble.
I don't see the analog of reproduction with variation?
Brent Meeker
"The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
nothing, and for nothing."
--- Quentin Smith
Received on Sun Sep 08 2002 - 21:14:56 PDT