On 17 Jun 2013, at 04:39, Jason Resch wrote:

One question that comes to my mind is how computationalism might lead to the phenomenon of interference. How is it that infinite programs going through a state can interfere?

Might interference be something local to the geography of this particular universe, or is it something comp predicts to be global for all physics for all observers?

That's the most important question, of all.

To be sure, even just that is still open.

In case interference are not extract from comp, it would mean that the quantum is a geographical phenomenon, or that the SWE is non linear.

But the quantum is so deep, and is somehow connected to linearity and symmetries which are even deeper, so that I doubt that physics might be "not quantum", and I estimate that comp, and the whole of physics, would lost interest in case that interference feature was not a consequence of comp.

But then, eventually, when the math are done, the fact is that we get exactly what we need to have interference, and I hope I will be able to explain enough of this on the FOAR list, soon or a bit later.

In a nutshell:

Physics = measure on the relative consistent extensions (by UDA), and this is given mainly by the three points of view:

Bp & p, Bp & Dt, Bp & Dt & p

Comp will be translated in arithmetic by the restriction of p to the sigma_1 sentences,

then the logic associated to the three hypostases get indeed "quantum- like", by having a quantization formula:

p -> []<>p,

with []p given by the hypostases mentioned just above. You might try to search "LASE" in the archive, as I have call it here (for Little Abstract Schroedinger Equation).

This makes the corresponding logic obeying "a quantum logic", and it suggests both the linearity and the symmetries, and ... the existence of interferences. But some work remains to be done to verify this in all details, and to conclude that we have a quantum computer in our comp neighborhoods.

There is a work by Rawling and Selesnick which suggest we can extract a quantum NOR from "p -> []<>p", but it uses the necessitation rule, and we lost it in comp, so it is not clear how we can use it.

Bruno



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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to