On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:35, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
snip
And, in AUDA, the mathematical structure of the observable, which
are already shown to be a quantum logic. And von Neumann provides
some argument that the right "quantum logic should determine all the
relative probabilities, something realized somehow by Gleason
theorem. But comp has not been able to get his Gleason theorem, but
it is only a matter of work in math to get it.
We get not just the many-worlds (and the indeterminacy, non
locality, and non cloning), we get all the quantum tautologies, and
probably quantum physics. Do we get the physical constant? That is
an open problem to me.
If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine
tuning very strange.
I am not sure about the fine tuning.
But I am also not sure comp will derive the constants. perhaps some of
them, perhaps all of them, perhaps none of them. If arithmetic itself
is the winner, the constant will be related from the mathematical
constant apperaning in number theory. But we are far from being able
to find them today.
If there is only one physics, and that includes only "these"
constants, we ought to be astonished and delighted that they allowed
life at all. Or are the constants that win also bounded by anthropic
reasons?
You mean Turing-tropic reason?
Open problem.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
