On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 5:54 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]>wrote:
> > ----- Forwarded message from Russell Standish <[email protected]> > ----- > > Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 18:18:59 +1000 > From: Russell Standish <[email protected]> > To: Ricardo Aler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Theory of Nothing > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i > > On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:53:53AM +0200, Ricardo Aler wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > Yes. However, you are trying to derive QM from first principles, so > > it's a little unfair to use experimental results as well :). Also, > > No - first principles would say complex measure is more likely than a > real measure. All the experimental results say is that there is no > need to go looking for an extra principle to impose a real measure. > > > when counting the number of observers, it seems more natural to use a > > real measure. > > Not much of a reason... > > > > > But it would be wonderful if it could be shown that the existence of > > life requires complex measures (which is very likely true). > > > > Its the other way around - the existence of life does not require a > real measure. > > Hope no one minds me reviving an old thread. Doesn't interference play a crucial role in preventing electrons from falling into the nucleus? I believe I have heard that somewhere but I don't remember where and I am not sure of its veracity. If it is true, it seems to me that would provide an anthropic reason for ruling out real measure. Jason -- 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.
