Dear Russel,
What I am considering is this from
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/1999-embed-jfulltext.pdf. The aspect of
a quantum system that can be embedded into an atomic Boolean algebra or
related classical structure.
Could this partial image of a QM system be sufficient, given the ability
of QM system of simulating, function f, classical systems completely, to
act as a partitioning function, function g, over the operators for
observables as to seperate them out into mutually consistence subsets?
The idea looks like this:
f
Q ----- > {C}
^ |
| g |
-----<------
Where Q is a quantum system and {C} is the set of class of simulable
classical systems, f being the simulation function and g being the partial
(non-bijective) map from the Lindenbaum algebra of the classical systems to
Q.
This seems to allow for some kind of quotienting or partitioning of the
operators that make up Q.
I apologize if my question is ill posed. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruno Marchal"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russel,
>
> Could we associate this "psychological time" with the orderings that
> obtain when considering successive measurements of various measurements of
> non-commutative canonically conjugate (QM) states?
The word "successive" implies a time dimension already. I'm not sure
what you are proposing here.
> Also, re your Occam's razor paper, have you considered the necessity
of
> a principle that applies between observers, more than that involved with
the
> Anthropic principle? Something along the lines of: the allowable
> communications between observers is restrained to only those that are
> mutually consistent. We see hints of this in EPR situations. ;-)
>
No I haven't considered this second requirement. It would be
interesting to note whether it is a derivative concept (can be derived
from the standard QM principles say), or whether it needs to be added
in as a fundamental requirement (in which case comes the question of
why).
Cheers
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
>
> I think that "psychological time" fits the bill. The observer needs a
> a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between
> states.
>
> "Physical time" presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in
> "Occam".
>
> It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space
> dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences,
> isn't it?
>
> Cheers
>
> snip
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
