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

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:20:44 +1000

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*>
*

*> Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
*

*>
*

*> >I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
*

*> >regard to the "Why Occam" discussion so far. I really don't understand
*

*> >what it means to explain appearances rather than reality.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Well this I understand. I would even argue that Everett gives an
*

*> example by providing an explanation of the appearance of a wave
*

*> collapse from the SWE (Schroedinger Wave equation) and this without any
*

*> *real*collapse.
*

*> And I pretend at least that if comp is correct, then the SWE as an
*

*> *appearance* emerges statistically from the "interference" of all
*

*> computations as seen from some inner point of view of the mean
*

*> universal machine.
*

*> But, as I pointed a long time ago Russell is hiding (de facto, not
*

*> intentionally I guess :) many assumptions.
*

It would be nice to expose these "hidden" assumptions. As far as I'm

aware, all my assumptions are exposed and upfront, where at least you

as a reader can decide if you agree, but there is always the

possibility of some that I've missed.

*> There are a lot of "derivation" of the SWE in the literature, it would
*

*> be interesting that Russell compares them with its own. My favorite one
*

*> is the one by Henry and another one by Hardy.
*

The only thing I was aware of by Henry was a derivation of the

correspondence principle from gauge invariance in a paper you sent me,

something I think that Stenger does better in his book (which is

almost published now!).

And as for Hardy, I never found his axioms terribly "reasonable",

unfortunately.

*> Note the incredible derivation of QM from just 5 experiments + a
*

*> natural principle of simplicity by Julian Swinger in his QM course
*

*> (taken again by Towsend in its QM textbook). I will give reference once
*

*> less busy.
*

*>
*

Sure - I'm not aware of that.

*> I agree with Hal and Paddy about the lack of clarity in many passages.
*

*> Note that my result is infinitely more modest (despite the
*

*> appearance!).
*

Hardly infinitely more modest. You start from a slightly different

basis (COMP thesis vs all descriptions ensemble), derive the

existence of what I assume, and end up not quite where I end

up. Perhaps if you adopted Kolmogorov probability axioms, you could

get the full QM theory to result. The other things I assume tend to be

assumed by you also - COMP => TIME, and I think you assume PROJ. Not

sure where your work stand with the Anthropic Principle.

*> I just prove that if comp is assumed to be correct then a
*

*> derivation of the SWE *must* exist, without providing it. Well, in the
*

*> interview of the Lobian machine I do extract some 'quantum logic' from
*

*> comp, but it is too early to judge if the SWE can be extracted from it.
*

*> But it should be, in principle, if comp is true. Advantage: I just
*

*> assume natural numbers and classical logic, I don't assume any geometry
*

*> or temporality, which for me are really the miraculous things in need
*

*> to be explained.
*

*>
*

*> Bruno
*

*>
*

Received on Tue Jun 07 2005 - 04:25:28 PDT

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:20:44 +1000

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

It would be nice to expose these "hidden" assumptions. As far as I'm

aware, all my assumptions are exposed and upfront, where at least you

as a reader can decide if you agree, but there is always the

possibility of some that I've missed.

The only thing I was aware of by Henry was a derivation of the

correspondence principle from gauge invariance in a paper you sent me,

something I think that Stenger does better in his book (which is

almost published now!).

And as for Hardy, I never found his axioms terribly "reasonable",

unfortunately.

Sure - I'm not aware of that.

Hardly infinitely more modest. You start from a slightly different

basis (COMP thesis vs all descriptions ensemble), derive the

existence of what I assume, and end up not quite where I end

up. Perhaps if you adopted Kolmogorov probability axioms, you could

get the full QM theory to result. The other things I assume tend to be

assumed by you also - COMP => TIME, and I think you assume PROJ. Not

sure where your work stand with the Anthropic Principle.

-- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*