On 08-Sep-02, Russell Standish wrote: > George Levy wrote: > ...

## Advertising

>> As it stand, the comp hypothesis is only a philosophical >> exercise because it does not reproduce the same phenomenon >> as QM in particular the phenomenon of complementarity. >> Therefore, to establish a meaningful relevance between comp >> and QM we must show that such phenomena can be incorporated >> in comp. >> The following thought experiment is an attempt to illustrate >> how complementarity can be incorporated into a duplication >> experiment. This experiment raises some interesting >> questions regarding the relationship between the scientific >> MW and the philosopical plenitude. >> Thought Experiment: > .... >> Questions >> This thought experiment, attempt to provide a model of how >> MW relates to the Comp hypothesis. Many questions arise. 1) >> Why is it that the Plenitude is not directly accessed by QM >> as explained by comp. Why is there a need for an >> intermediate MW characterized by complementarity? 2) Why is >> complementarity two-dimensional? Could it be >> three-dimentional? or higher? 3) Is the two-dimensionality >> of complementarity fact-like? Are there other worlds in the >> Plenitude which have a complementarity with a higher >> dimensionality? >> 4) Is the MW only one instance in the Plenitude? How many >> levels do we have to go from the scientifically determined >> MW to the philosophically determined Plenitude? >> 5) Is complementarity anthropically necessary? >> This is only a feable attempt in the generation of a >> physical model to relate comp to the MW. I hope that we can >> improve on it through our discussions. >> George > I would like to point out that my "Why Occam's Razor" paper > answers about 90% of your question (with the other 10% being > the most difficult bit, or course :). > Complementarity is a property of any two quantum operators > that are related by the Fourier transform (x <-> id/dx). The > proof is well known, and can be found (eg) in Shankar's book. > That momentum is represented by derivative operator (P=id/dx) > is called the correspondence principle, and is usually given > as an axiom (see Shankar). Henry gave a "derivation" of this > correspondence principle about 10 years ago, (Bruno kindly > sent me a copy), but I believe his derivation is faulty. To > date, I still gregard the correspondence principle as a > mystery. Have a look at http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Nothing/WhereLaws.pdf > The other "axioms" of quantum mechanics can be derived from a > simple model of observation (set out in Why Occams razor). > Observers select an observation purely at random from an > ensemble of choices, subject to the anthropic constraint. > This is analogous to Darwinian evolution, where natural > selection selects from natural variation. It is my > supposition that this generalized evolutionary process is the > only possible creative process - the only means of generating > the complex (information rich) structures from the simple > ones that are favoured in the Schmidhuber ensemble. I don't see the analog of reproduction with variation? Brent Meeker "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." --- Quentin Smith