> On 21 Jun 2018, at 23:46, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/21/2018 6:33 AM, smitra wrote: >> On 21-06-2018 05:01, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> On 6/20/2018 6:30 PM, smitra wrote: >>>> On 19-06-2018 23:22, Brent Meeker wrote: >>>>> On 6/18/2018 6:03 PM, smitra wrote: >>>>>> On 17-06-2018 22:42, Jason Resch wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Lawrence, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the evolution of states of the wave function computable? If so then >>>>>>> the result of MRDP implies it is Diophantine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>>> Or you could try to see if QM could be a meta-theory that arises when >>>>>> you try to give a statistical description of the set of all these >>>>>> Diophantine sets. I tried to do something similar with the set of >>>>>> algorithms a few years ago, getting a half-baked result, some hints at >>>>>> how quantum field theory could arise from this. >>>>>> >>>>>> You want to compute the probability that an observer that's encoded by >>>>>> some mathematical structure has some given information content. So, if >>>>>> you observe the outcome of an experiment, that's information in your >>>>>> brain. >>>>> >>>>> Which is the QBism interpretation of QM. If you take the view that QM >>>>> is about predicting and explaining what one will see, there's no point >>>>> in going further...the rest is metaphysics. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> QM should then emerge as an effective theory and the correct >>>> interpretation should also follow. >>> >>> ?? QBism is an interpretation. >>> >>> Brent >> >> If we derive QM from a more fundamental principle then that is likely to >> single out one particular interpretation of QM as the correct one. So, which >> interpretation is correct is then no longer a philosophical or metaphysical >> question, it's something that can be probed experimentally by testing the >> underlying theory from which QM is derived. > > So you're considering finding a more fundamental theory such that QM will be > a consequence or effective theory. Of course that may involve questions of > interpretation of the more fundamental theory.
Not if you start from the interpretation, which is reasonable for elementary arithmetic. Of course, if you start from the combinators, that might be more difficult, but has still been solved (by set theoretical model, with the work of Dana Scott, notably). In logic, interpretation is part of the mathematics, and with mechanism, it is part of the arithmetic reality. You need only weak version of the excluded middle. 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.
