On 5/8/2011 9:19 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logicalnon-contradiction requirement would be trivial as the number ofphysical alternatives that could occur next per state is one, thisgenerates a one to one to one to one to one ... type of sequencing.There is no “choice” in the Newtonian case.

## Advertising

And hence no measure problem.

On the other hand, in QM we have a clear example of irreducible andnon-trivial alternatives that could occur next per state. IN QM,observables are defined in terms of complex valued amplitudes which donot have a well ordering as Real numbered valuations do.

`No, observables are defined by Hermitean operators which have real`

`eigenvalues. The Hamiltonian generates time evolution.`

Because of this fact we cannot assume that OMs exist with an a prioriwell ordering. Time exists because everything cannot occur all at once.

`It takes more than that though; time implies an ordering. I don't know`

`what an "observer moment" is, so I don't know whether one can overlap`

`another or not. What's an operational definition of an OM?`

My argument is that the traditional notion of a measure does notapply because we cannot assume the simultaneous co-reliability of OMs,thus the DA is an artifact of misapplied statistics.

I don't understand that. Brent

Onward! Stephen

-- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.