> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:21, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> See my papers. We get a quantum logic for the observable. > > How do you define an observable such that everyone can agree on the observed > value?
That is a complex problem, not yet solved. But if you can show that there is no solution, you refute Mechanism. Yet the basic idea is simple: people can share histories when they are collectively multiplied, which is what QM provides, so the problem is that we don’t have a tensor product yet. I got an idea to extract it, buying Temperley-Lieb algebra related to formal Reidemester moves (cf knot theory) which appears in the graded quantum logics []^n p & <>^m t, with n < m. The self-referential arithmetic physical reality might be an immense braid, apparently. But this asks for many generations of mathematicians to solve. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
