Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:13:01AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote: I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage: http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf I have posted Youness's original critique, and my response to the files area of Googlegroups (http://groups.google.com.au/group/everything-list/files?hl=en). We need to do this, as the mathematical notation is too heavy for plain email. In summary, I would say that Youness raises a couple of interesting points, and trips over a couple of areas where I have been careless with notation or omitted some explanation. Hopefully, my explanations will make this clearer. I look foward to further comments from people, and a vigourous discussion (albeit via this email list). Cheers -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
Hi Youness/Russell: I am very interested in this thread. Russell: In our last conversation you got me to look at my completeness resolution driven transitions in the evolution of my Somethings [universes] as information processing. From that point, if I alter the transition slightly and make it an influx of information from the rest of the Everything that enables resolution of some of the incompleteness rather than directly resolving it then a selection process on this new information is required to complete the resolution process. While many selection processes may be possible an anthropic one seems to fit some of the circumstances of our universe. I now seem to have covered the basic outputted aspects of your approach [I think], but with just one [as far as I can tell] postulate: There is an ALL [the complete ensemble of divisors [information] and its own divisions [collections of information]] that contains as two of its divisions the Everything and the Nothing. From this using the inherent incompleteness- [the duration meaningful question] - and no selection - [no net information in the ALL] properties of these structures I extract the components: time, variation, selection [anthropic included], heritability, prediction, communication, evolution, filters. My approach seems to get to a similar place by a simpler path. So I hope the derivation of quantum mechanics is also there, unfortunately I do not have the background to aid the construction of the derivation in much of a mathematical way. Youness: Regarding your comments on page 4 of your analysis: I appear to have been able to derive the necessity for a selection process within an evolving universe. By the global no selection rule for the ALL the type of process is not restricted. Therefore from this derivation consciousness is not a requirement in order to have a process but may be present. Also from this derivation, the process is an inseparable part of the system. Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics Hi Youness, Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far more depth than the referees of the Why Occams Razor paper. I will respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take some time to respond thoughtfully. As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else. Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
Hi Russell, and Roy Frieden's approaches, and have you read Cosma Shalizi's review of Frieden's book? http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/physics-from-fisher-info/ I am not familiar with Frieden's Theory, but I know that Shalizi's reviews are well founded. Regards, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
Hi Youness, Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far more depth than the referees of the Why Occams Razor paper. I will respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take some time to respond thoughtfully. As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else. Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this. On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:13:01AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote: I have elaborated a comprehensive analysis of Russell's derivation of quantum mechanics; the article can be found online on my homepage: http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~yayaita/Russell_Derivation_QM.pdf An extract: 1. Point of Departure In his article Why Occam's Razor and in appendix D of his book Theory of Nothing, Russell presents a derivation of the postulates that underly quantum mechanics based on the theory of the Everything ensemble. In usual treatments of quantum mechanics that can be found in various textbooks, these postulates aren't justified on any deeper level. Though, there have been considerable efforts (mostly linked to the Everett interpretation, also called many-worlds or relative state interpretation) to explain the apparent validity of the postulates describing the collapse of the wavefunction starting from the no-collapse postulates. Recent contributions have been published by Wallace and Zurek. But Russell goes even much further: He also derives the core of quantum mechanics, its no-collapse postulates, using the theory of the Everything ensemble and a few assumptions. If Russell is right, then his derivation is a great and to date unrivalled highlight of our efforts for justifying the theory of the Everything ensemble. Aspects of the structure of our world are explained by reason alone without referring to experiments---this could be the first great achievement of what I call rationalist physics. His work induces Russell to be enthusiastic: referring to Feynman's famous statement that nobody understands quantum mechanics'', Russell writes in chapter 7 of his book: I can now say that I understand quantum mechanics.'' and he summarizes Quantum mechanics is simply a theory of observation!'' The significance of Russell's claim cannot be overrated. And I do hope that he is right. Nonetheless, I elaborate a thorough criticism of his derivation. If Russell can disprove my objections (and I hope he will), my criticism will contribute to a clarification of several issues. If my criticism holds, then it is up to all of us to improve Russell's approach or to suggest completely new ideas. So, I invite all of you to participate actively in the discussion that will follow. I will outline Russell's derivation step by step. My presentation sticks closely to appendix D of Russell's book. I slightly changed notations in order to avoid confusions. Regards, Youness Ayaita -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
