On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 06:18:47AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> > wrote: > > > 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. >
Well it's good in the sense that business is going well. But not so good in that my fundamental research program has gone on the backburner. With a bit of luck, one of my projects will go so well that I'll be able to "retire" to doing full time research... Dream on. > > 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? Well I have had a lot of time to think about it (couple of decades), and the link has kind of stumped me to date. However Markus Mueller's work, of which I have only recently become aware, might be the missing link. His setup is based around a transition graph on bitstrings. The bitstrings most likely correspond to observer moment subsets of everything in my theory, but the graph probably corresponds to the Kripke network that arises in one of Bruno's hypostases. But it'll probably require a younger mind than mine. But most younger minds will not be financially or professionally secure enough to tackle what has a whiff of crank science about it, sadly. > > 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. > Thanks for the suggestion. I've always enjoyed her columns in New Scientist. I might wait for a Kindle version though, as getting that book in physical for to Oz usually doubles or triples the price. Actually, I noticed that Carlo Rovelli has a book out that might be worth a read too. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow hpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
