Brent Meeker wrote:
> Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish "true randomness" from
> "unpredictable" randomness. So there are theories of QM in which the
> is just unpredictable, like Bohm's - and here's a recent paper on that
> theme you
> may find interesting:
> From: Gerard Hooft 't [view email]
> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:17:08 GMT (23kb)
> The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics
> Authors: Gerard 't Hooft
> Comments: 15 pages, 3 figures
> Report-no: ITP-UU-06/14, SPIN-06/12
> If there exists a classical, i.e. deterministic theory underlying
> mechanics, an explanation must be found of the fact that the
> Hamiltonian, which
> is defined to be the operator that generates evolution in time, is
> bounded from
> below. The mechanism that can produce exactly such a constraint is
> identified in
> this paper. It is the fact that not all classical data are registered
> in the
> quantum description. Large sets of values of these data are assumed to
> indistinguishable, forming equivalence classes. It is argued that this
> should be
> attributed to information loss, such as what one might suspect to
> happen during
> the formation and annihilation of virtual black holes.
> The nature of the equivalence classes is further elucidated, as
> it follows
> from the positivity of the Hamiltonian. Our world is assumed to
> consist of a
> very large number of subsystems that may be regarded as approximately
> independent, or weakly interacting with one another. As long as two
> (or more)
> sectors of our world are treated as being independent, they all must
> be demanded
> to be restricted to positive energy states only. What follows from
> considerations is a unique definition of energy in the quantum system
> in terms
> of the periodicity of the limit cycles of the deterministic model.
Saibal Mitra has often referd us to 't Hooft argument in favor of a
I still don't understand how he manages EPR-BELL like phenomena.
Now in the zeta-primes sort of TOE, I can guess a purely arithmetical
argument in favor of a TOE with a single universe. The primes would
could both the Universal (chaotic) Wave Function and a selection
function. The primes are that perverse! We could get a comp theory with
only one universe! I doubt it to be sure, but who really knows. In that
case, from UDA you could infer that there would be only one person,
living different lifes. Reintroducing a deterministic bottom could have
very strange consequences too.
> It's also unclear as to what "probability" means in the MWI. Omnes'
> points out
> that "probability" means some things happen and some don't.
I do think the MWI indeterminacy are "just" first person plural
indeterminacy. Then probabilities can be justified in the manner of
Hartle and or Graham, or with the use of Gleason theorem. See also the
paper by Deutsch on the structure of the multiverse.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at