Saibal Mitra wrote:

>Bruno writes in the article Computation, Consciousness and the Quantum ( 
> )
>``All sufficiently realist interpretations of quantum mechanics accept the 
>existence of parallel situations.
>I think that this is true for interpretations that assume that quantum 
>mechanics is fundamental.

No. That is true for interpretations that assume quantum mechanics. 
(or that assume QM true, if you prefer).
+ enough realism with respect to superposition states.

> However, 't Hooft has recently shown that it is 
>possible to derive quantum mechanics from a certain class of deterministic 
>models, avoiding the usual problems of hidden variables. 

You should elaborate ... or finish my paper ! :-). With a sufficiently
large sense of "deterministic model" I show it is even *necessary* to derive
quantum mechanics from a deterministic model.

>In fact his 
>theory doesn't treat particles as elements of physical reality at all.

Nor do I. The point is that you can measure position of some object. And
that is what we want to explain. Everett succeeds partially (with and in QM).

>Particles only arise in the statistical treatment of the deterministic 
>Therefore Bell's theorem doesn't apply. 

What do you mean ? If the statistics are pure third-person local classical
statistics, then  these statistics will be different from the quantum
one (Bell's theorem). So you can choose between  non-locality or accepting 
that the statistics include the first person, like in the MWI or any more 
general form of Self Sampling Assumption. Does 't hooft take the self
into account ?

> See


I will take a look at the references but I suspect he embeds the observer
in the "universe(s)". Quantum relativist does it all the time ...


Reply via email to