On 30/06/2017 1:15 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:26:50AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 29/06/2017 5:36 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:19:40PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That is where I must object. 3p, or 0p as I would prefer to refer to
the bird view, is not an observer moment because there is no such
observer.
If we take a simple example, where observer moments are, say, the
sets {1,2,3}, {4,5,6}, and {7,8,9}, then the set of all observer
moments, a set of sets, each being one of these sets, does not
contain the union of the first two observer moments, which is the
set {1,2,3,4,5,6}. So the sum or union of two observer moments is
not necessarily another observer moment, in fact, I doubt that it
ever could be; 3p is not an observer moment.
Yes - this is a fair point. \P_{a}ψ+\P_{b}ψ obviously refers to the
observer moment prior to observation, ie indicating an ignorant OM,
but a\P_{A}ψ+b\P_{B}ψ in equation (D.7) cannot refer to a single
observer moment, but rather an aggregate OM. It seems to me to
describe a observers in OM ψ choosing to measure on partition A,¬A and
b observers choosing to measure on partition B,¬B.
In other words, observer moments are not vectors (or rays) in a linear
vector space because a linear superposition of observer moments is not
another observer moment: your derivation of Hilbert space fails.
Bruce
--
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.
