On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit : > > >I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with > >regard to the "Why Occam" discussion so far. I really don't understand > >what it means to explain appearances rather than reality. > > > Well this I understand. I would even argue that Everett gives an > example by providing an explanation of the appearance of a wave > collapse from the SWE (Schroedinger Wave equation) and this without any > *real*collapse. > And I pretend at least that if comp is correct, then the SWE as an > *appearance* emerges statistically from the "interference" of all > computations as seen from some inner point of view of the mean > universal machine. > But, as I pointed a long time ago Russell is hiding (de facto, not > intentionally I guess :) many assumptions.

## Advertising

It would be nice to expose these "hidden" assumptions. As far as I'm aware, all my assumptions are exposed and upfront, where at least you as a reader can decide if you agree, but there is always the possibility of some that I've missed. > There are a lot of "derivation" of the SWE in the literature, it would > be interesting that Russell compares them with its own. My favorite one > is the one by Henry and another one by Hardy. The only thing I was aware of by Henry was a derivation of the correspondence principle from gauge invariance in a paper you sent me, something I think that Stenger does better in his book (which is almost published now!). And as for Hardy, I never found his axioms terribly "reasonable", unfortunately. > Note the incredible derivation of QM from just 5 experiments + a > natural principle of simplicity by Julian Swinger in his QM course > (taken again by Towsend in its QM textbook). I will give reference once > less busy. > Sure - I'm not aware of that. > I agree with Hal and Paddy about the lack of clarity in many passages. > Note that my result is infinitely more modest (despite the > appearance!). Hardly infinitely more modest. You start from a slightly different basis (COMP thesis vs all descriptions ensemble), derive the existence of what I assume, and end up not quite where I end up. Perhaps if you adopted Kolmogorov probability axioms, you could get the full QM theory to result. The other things I assume tend to be assumed by you also - COMP => TIME, and I think you assume PROJ. Not sure where your work stand with the Anthropic Principle. > I just prove that if comp is assumed to be correct then a > derivation of the SWE *must* exist, without providing it. Well, in the > interview of the Lobian machine I do extract some 'quantum logic' from > comp, but it is too early to judge if the SWE can be extracted from it. > But it should be, in principle, if comp is true. Advantage: I just > assume natural numbers and classical logic, I don't assume any geometry > or temporality, which for me are really the miraculous things in need > to be explained. > > Bruno > -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**
pgpQV02YpvmwP.pgp**

*Description:* PGP signature