On 31 Aug 2005, at 16:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
False? I don't know. But if EQM is true then it is certainly redundant, given that the whole of physics (unlike geography) is, [assuming comp (and the correctness of the derivation, but this is assumed by default: it has been verified by many people)], derivable from computer science.
False and redundant have not the same meaning! I insist only that its (QM) observable consequences (in case QM gives correct prediction) can be derived from the same theory (comp) that proves it redundant (not false). Or that proves it false if QM is indeed false. Given that the MANY-WORLD, in the form of many (immaterial!) computational histories, is the most easier feature of reality to derive from comp i doubt we could be lead to Copenhagen. Strictly speaking this could logically happen, and i have since 5 years a curious argument which shows that even with comp some branches selection mechanism could exist. This is well beyond my thesis and is related on Riemann Hypothesis and the primes distribution, but at this stage it is out-of topics, to say the least. All what I say, Godfrey, is that if comp is correct, physics is a secondary science. Physics is "reduced" to the study of gluable or recollable pieces of consistent machine dreams. And those terms are easy to define in computer science (assuming comp of course), and this makes the comp hyp testable, by comparing the comp-phys with the usual phys. Bruno |