On 5/8/2011 9:19 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No, the Newtonian case would be such that the logical
non-contradiction requirement would be trivial as the number of
physical alternatives that could occur next per state is one, this
generates a one to one to one to one to one ... type of sequencing.
There is no “choice” in the Newtonian case.
And hence no measure problem.
On the other hand, in QM we have a clear example of irreducible and
non-trivial alternatives that could occur next per state. IN QM,
observables are defined in terms of complex valued amplitudes which do
not 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 priori
well 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 not
apply because we cannot assume the simultaneous co-reliability of OMs,
thus the DA is an artifact of misapplied statistics.
I don't understand that.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at