On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 01:09:41PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 24/06/2017 11:20 am, Russell Standish wrote: > >The 3p is what is left after removing all personal baggage of each 1p > >view point. It is literally the view from nowhere (since location is > >just such a baggage), and cannot be conscious in itself (for exactly > >the reason you outline below) > > It is this characterization of 3p that I find misleading. If all > personal baggage has been removed, how come you still talk as > thought this were a third person view? I think this terminology is > an unfortunate carry-over from the classical person-duplication > thought experiments. The bird view would more properly be called a > 0p view, since there are no 'persons' or 'person' who has this view. >
I have no problem with you arguing for a change in terminology, but to be clear, the term 3p has been used consistently on this list to mean roughly what I describe above for almost 2 decades. Until this discussion, it never even ocurred to me that it might be confusing - I never thought of 3p as a person. > > >There is still another datum. Because of the reasoning used in my > >derivation of QM (appendix D of my book), I equate the 3p with the > >quantum multiverse. Of course, my derivation may well be faulty - to > >my knowledge, only a handful of people have dug into and critiqued > >the argument in its 17 years of existence, without finding any fatal > >flaw - however assuming its validity, then we can equate the 3p with > >the bird view of Tegmark's level 3 multiverse. > > I have not had the time or energy to delve deeply into your > derivation. My experience of other attempts to 'derive' quantum > mechanics is that basic quantum concepts are introduced by > sleight-of-hand -- in other words, they usually beg the question. > That is still quite possible in my case, of course, but I have tried my utmost to make the assumptions explicit, and give reasonable justifications for them in terms of observer properties. Brent found 1 (or maybe 2, memory's a little hazy) hidden assumptions in my first version of the argument 15 years ago, which I have since corrected. The work has passed peer review, but as you well know, that's only a minimal hurdle. It is not enough for the work to be taken seriously by the field, nor (obviously) for to actually be right. The most worrying aspect of my derivation is the requirement that the complex field is the most general measure applicable for sets of observers. Complex numbers are not the most general measure (Banach spaces are), and if we must restrict the type of measure for any reason, then why not restrict all the way to real measures (which kind of seems natural). Another open problem is what is the relationship with the Gleason theorem? The Born rule naturally falls out of my construction, so the question is whether my derivation is independent of Gleason's theorem, or just incorporates it in disguise. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
