RE: Bio of Hugh Everett, III is posted

From: Bruno Marchal <>
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

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:
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.

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