On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 07:20:10AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > > > > 6. Most of all, theories of everything that assume a reality containing > > > all possible observers and observations lead directly to > laws/postulates of > > > quantum mechanics (see Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing > > > <http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf>, Chapter 7 and > > > Appendix D). > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Russell's attempt to derive quantum mechanics from the > > > plenum of all possible bit strings failed at the first step. So you > don't > > > have much support from this. > > > > > > > I would be very interested to see this, do you recall the subject or time > > frame of this discussion? > > The subject thread was "Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?". The > misspelling of Vector might help find the thread. > Thank you! I will catch up on this thread. > > Actually, "failing at the first step" was not my recollection of the > discussion. Bruce had some important critiques, the most important of > which is that the linear span of projected states L(ψₐ) that is used > for defining the inner product (D.9) is, well, as arbitrary as the > originally chosen observable A. > > My first cut at an answer to this tried to identify the everything > with the origin of the vector space - which had a nice property that > a complex field was required in order for some non-everything states > not to collapse to the origin. However, that approach ultimately ran > into a problem with non-orthonormalisability of the basis states. So I > tried an alternate approach with the everything being a primitive > direction in the vector space, and all subsets of the everything being > orthogonal to it. This had some very nice properties, including the > subset measure being given by the square of the vector norm, and that > the vector space is a vector (or spectral) measure, the most general > kind of measure there is. But lost was the nice requirement for the > field to be complex, which was always a bit of a problem with the > original derivation. > > I've been meaning to get this in publishable form, but time and other > commitments have gotten in my way. > > I (and I know many others on this list and elsewhere) eagerly await and look forward this. > In the meantime, Bruce thought he had a proof this was impossible to > do (ie a vector space representation of the powerset of bitstrings that > gives rise to the Born rule). However, he has yet to present his > proof. My work mentioned above, appears to be a counterexample. > > In the meantime, another problem came to my attention from Markus > Mueller (arxiv:1712.0181), where he points out that it is an open > question whether transition probability for process on strings is > naturally Markovian. The latter portion of my proof, in particular > (D.13) is assuming a Markovian process. > > Thanks for the reference, I will check it out. Might combining your theory with a theory of computation (like the UDA) be helpful in linking or otherwise tying together successively observed bit strings? I found the book "Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn <https://www.amazon.com/Trespassing-Einsteins-Lawn-Beginning-Everything/dp/B011DALEW8/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=QRMCP2GEE90YCNEKJ2YN>" to be quite remarkable in breaking down the laws of physics to being the bare minimum that is necessary to ensure consistency between observers. It might be a fruitful avenue to explore, as it seems at least possibly related to your effort. Jason -- 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.
