- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:44:36 +0100

Hi David,

*>How successful would you say has been the idea to derive QM from number
*

*>theory?
*

They remain still many open mathematical questions to proceed. But the

point is that if comp is correct (and comp is the favorite hypothesis about

the observer for many many-worlders) then we *have to* derive QM from comp,

independently of the difficulty of the task. It makes also comp Popper

falsifiable: just derive QM from comp, and then compare to empirical QM.

*>What proportion of physicists are aware of this idea?
*

I don't know. In general physicists take the existence of the universe for

granted. Also most dislikes the idea that physics is not "fundamental".

But some understands the proof. Other are open to the idea that

QM comes from numbers, because there are evidences from

number theory itself (relation between knot theory, quantum field and

prime numbers for example:

see http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/index.htm

I am pretty sure that "materialism" will be considered tomorrow

like "vitalism" today: a sort of empty hypothesis, if not a superstition.

*>How does it relate to the Russell Standish derivation of QM?
*

It does not presuppose space, time. It confronts the mind body problem,

and also I still believe Russell presuppose the linearity of the evolution.

Bruno

Received on Wed Dec 24 2003 - 07:54:51 PST

Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:44:36 +0100

Hi David,

They remain still many open mathematical questions to proceed. But the

point is that if comp is correct (and comp is the favorite hypothesis about

the observer for many many-worlders) then we *have to* derive QM from comp,

independently of the difficulty of the task. It makes also comp Popper

falsifiable: just derive QM from comp, and then compare to empirical QM.

I don't know. In general physicists take the existence of the universe for

granted. Also most dislikes the idea that physics is not "fundamental".

But some understands the proof. Other are open to the idea that

QM comes from numbers, because there are evidences from

number theory itself (relation between knot theory, quantum field and

prime numbers for example:

see http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/index.htm

I am pretty sure that "materialism" will be considered tomorrow

like "vitalism" today: a sort of empty hypothesis, if not a superstition.

It does not presuppose space, time. It confronts the mind body problem,

and also I still believe Russell presuppose the linearity of the evolution.

Bruno

Received on Wed Dec 24 2003 - 07:54:51 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*