Brent Meeker wrote:

> Unfortunately there is no way to distinguish "true randomness" from 
> just
> "unpredictable" randomness.  So there are theories of QM in which the 
> randomness
> is just unpredictable, like Bohm's - and here's a recent paper on that 
> theme you
> may find interesting:
>
> quant-ph/0604008
>
> 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 
> quantum
> 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 
> be
> 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 
> these
> 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 
deterministic QM.
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.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to