Re: Duplication Thought Experiment Involving Complementarity

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:13:17 -0700

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.
>

Come on! This is circular reasoning. Conventional QM complementarity
requires 2D Fourier. Therefore 2D Fourier must describe complementarity.
True for conventional QM. I was talking about other MWs within the
Plenitude. Could their complementarity be described by Hadamar
transforms for example?

>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>It is the anthropic principle that requires us to live in an
>information rich world. The AP is a mystery - one that I believe to be
>equivalent to the famous "mind-body" problem, ie why should we observe
>a correspondence between our mind and a a complex structure called the
>brain?
>
>So to answer your dot points:
>
>1) The above mechanism is why we need an intermediate Multiverse.
>2) The complementarity is 2D because the Fourier transform is its own
>inverse.
>
I don't agree with this reasoning. It is circular.


>A 3D complementarity relationship would require a 3-cycle
>transformation between operators:
>
> X-->Y
> ^ /
> \v
> Z
>
>
>(ASCII characters are _so_ limited...)
>
>To fully answer this question requires answering "Why the correspondence
>principle?"
>
>3) appears to be related to 2) ...?
>
>4) The Multiverse appears to be the only one containing conscious
>observers (subject to the above model of consciousness being necessary).
>
>5) I believe yes (subject to an adequate derivation of the
>correspondence principle existing).
>

Interesting but you haven't convinced me.

George
Received on Tue Sep 10 2002 - 10:14:16 PDT