Hi Youness/Russell: I am very interested in this thread.
Russell: In our last conversation you got me to look at my completeness resolution driven transitions in the evolution of my Somethings [universes] as information processing. >From that point, if I alter the transition slightly and make it an influx of information from the rest of the Everything that enables resolution of some of the incompleteness rather than directly resolving it then a selection process on this new information is required to complete the resolution process. While many selection processes may be possible an anthropic one seems to fit some of the circumstances of our universe. I now seem to have covered the basic outputted aspects of your approach [I think], but with just one [as far as I can tell] postulate: "There is an ALL [the complete ensemble of divisors [information] and its own divisions [collections of information]] that contains as two of its divisions the Everything and the Nothing." >From this using the inherent "incompleteness"- [the duration meaningful question] - and "no selection - [no net information in the ALL] properties of these structures I extract the components: time, variation, selection [anthropic included], heritability, prediction, communication, evolution, filters. My approach seems to get to a similar place by a simpler path. So I hope the derivation of quantum mechanics is also there, unfortunately I do not have the background to aid the construction of the derivation in much of a mathematical way. Youness: Regarding your comments on page 4 of your analysis: I appear to have been able to derive the necessity for a selection process within an evolving universe. By the global "no selection" rule for the ALL the type of process is not restricted. Therefore from this derivation consciousness is not a requirement in order to have a process but may be present. Also from this derivation, the process is an inseparable part of the system. Hal Ruhl -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics Hi Youness, Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far more depth than the referees of the "Why Occams Razor" paper. I will respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take some time to respond thoughtfully. As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else. Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---