### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```
> On 3 Dec 2018, at 16:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:42:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If you
>>> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation
>>> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state,
>>> then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the unique
>>> probability values.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN ADDITION
>>> TO ARITHMETIC. I don't buy it. AG
>>
>> On the contrary, mechanism assumes less than any other theory. And Mechanism
>> is roughly the idea that the brain does not invoke magical things.
>>
>> The theory of everything, with mechanism assumed at the metalevel, assume
>> only S K, S≠K, and the axioms
>>
>> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
>> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
>> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>> 4) Kxy = x
>> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>>
>> I doubt that you will find an easier theory.
>> (Exercice: prove that x = x)
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> But you haven't replied to my objection. In addition to logic and the axioms
>> of arithmetic, you must ALSO assume such a thing as probability exists to
>> even approach QM. What you have above won't cut it, IMO. AG
>
>
> I do not assume any probabilities in the ontology. I justify them through the
> phenomenology. Here I was just making clear that I assume only the 5 rules
> and axioms above. There is three inference rules:
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>
> And two axioms:
>
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
> Are the variables restricted to natural numbers, that is, the positive
> integers?

A combinatory algebra is any set with some law or operation verifying the
axioms above. That can be birds (Smullyan) or whatever you want, as long as the
formula above are satisfied.

And they can be numbers indeed. I will probably prove, soon, that if you take
the set N (the natural numbers), and fix some universal machinery phi_i (that
is an enumeration of the partial computable functions), then by defining (i j)
by phi_i(j) we make N into a combinatory algebra. So any universal
system/machine/number automatically endow N with a structure of (partial)
combinatory algebra. There are other more sophisticated models though.

phi_i(j) denotes the result of applying the ith program (of the fixed
enumeration of all programs in the fixed universal machinery) on the number j.

Kxy abbreviates ((K x) y) where (K x) denotes what is noted usually K(x), that
is K applied on x.

> What are these axioms, explicitly?

They are axioms defining the combinatory algebra, which captures the Turing
Universal system. Like the axioms of group theory defines the group. Not sure
of the meaning of your question, as it is hard to be more explicit than by
giving axioms.

> And No, I don't believe there's enough here to infer de Broglie matter waves,
> or the quantum interference pattern for, say, the double slit. AG

Being skeptical is good … as long as your skepticism does not prevent you to
verify the proof and perhaps to justify your disbelief with some specific
argument. If not, I will think that your disbelief is based on some personal
opinion (like believing in some ontological matter that we would have to
assume). In that case we are no more doing science.
And, yes, the axiom above capture basically the whole of computer science,
although we can add many axioms, to get more particular theories (Turing
complete or not). Of course, by incompleteness, to get the whole theoretical
computer truth, we would need a (non recursively enumerable) infinity of
axioms. Such truth are beyond *all* theories.

Note that I could use the numbers instead of combintaors; using Robinson

0 ≠ s(x) (0 is not the successor of a number)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y (different numbers have different successors)
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))(except for 0, all numbers have a predecessor)
x+0 = x  (if you add zero to a number, you get that number)
x+s(y) = s(x+y)  (if you add a number x to the successor of a number y, you get
the successor of x added to y)
x*0=0   (if you multiply a number by 0, you get 0)
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x(if you multiply a number x by the successor of y, you get
the number x added to the multiplication of the number x with y)

OK?

That theory, amazingly, is also Turing complete, despite being very weak (it
cannot prove that 0 + x = x, for example).

Bruno

>
>
> Nothing else is assumed, ```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 2:42:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If
>>> you start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent
>>> formulation* and you premise that there is a probability interpretation
>>> of  a state*, then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule
>>> provides the unique probability values.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> *So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, mechanism assumes less than any other theory. And
>> Mechanism is roughly the idea that the brain does not invoke magical things.
>>
>> The theory of everything, with mechanism assumed at the metalevel, assume
>> only S K, S≠K, and the axioms
>>
>> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
>> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
>> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>> 4) Kxy = x
>> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>>
>> I doubt that you will find an easier theory.
>> (Exercice: prove that x = x)
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> *But you haven't replied to my objection. In addition to logic and the
> axioms of arithmetic, you must ALSO assume such a thing as probability
> exists to even approach QM. What you have above won't cut it, IMO. AG *
>
>
>
> I do not assume any probabilities in the ontology. I justify them through
> the phenomenology. Here I was just making clear that I assume only the 5
> rules and axioms above. There is three inference rules:
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>
> And two axioms:
>
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>

*Are the variables restricted to natural numbers, that is, the positive
integers? What are these axioms, explicitly? And No, I don't believe
there's enough here to infer de Broglie matter waves, or the quantum
interference pattern for, say, the double slit. AG*

> Nothing else is assumed, except mechanism and as much as needed
> mathematics at the meta level, like in all theories.
>
> I don’t expect you to believe this immediately. I just present the result,
> hoping you will study the proof.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> *Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply
>>> don't believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without
>>> actually observing a quantum interference pattern. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```
> On 2 Dec 2018, at 15:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If you
>> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation
>> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state, then
>> Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the unique
>> probability values.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN ADDITION
>> TO ARITHMETIC. I don't buy it. AG
>
> On the contrary, mechanism assumes less than any other theory. And Mechanism
> is roughly the idea that the brain does not invoke magical things.
>
> The theory of everything, with mechanism assumed at the metalevel, assume
> only S K, S≠K, and the axioms
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
> I doubt that you will find an easier theory.
> (Exercice: prove that x = x)
>
> Bruno
>
> But you haven't replied to my objection. In addition to logic and the axioms
> of arithmetic, you must ALSO assume such a thing as probability exists to
> even approach QM. What you have above won't cut it, IMO. AG

I do not assume any probabilities in the ontology. I justify them through the
phenomenology. Here I was just making clear that I assume only the 5 rules and
axioms above. There is three inference rules:

1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy

And two axioms:

4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)

Nothing else is assumed, except mechanism and as much as needed mathematics at
the meta level, like in all theories.

I don’t expect you to believe this immediately. I just present the result,
hoping you will study the proof.

Bruno

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply don't
>>> believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without actually
>>> observing a quantum interference pattern. AG
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> 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
> .
> 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
> .

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 12:11:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If you
>> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation*
>> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state*,
>> then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the unique
>> probability values.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> *So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN
>
>
> On the contrary, mechanism assumes less than any other theory. And
> Mechanism is roughly the idea that the brain does not invoke magical things.
>
> The theory of everything, with mechanism assumed at the metalevel, assume
> only S K, S≠K, and the axioms
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
> I doubt that you will find an easier theory.
> (Exercice: prove that x = x)
>
> Bruno
>

*But you haven't replied to my objection. In addition to logic and the
axioms of arithmetic, you must ALSO assume such a thing as probability
exists to even approach QM. What you have above won't cut it, IMO. AG *

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply don't
>> believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without actually
>> observing a quantum interference pattern. AG*
>>
>>
>>
> --
> 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
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:13, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If you
> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation
> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state, then
> Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the unique
> probability values.
>
> Brent
>
> So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN ADDITION
> TO ARITHMETIC. I don't buy it. AG

On the contrary, mechanism assumes less than any other theory. And Mechanism is
roughly the idea that the brain does not invoke magical things.

The theory of everything, with mechanism assumed at the metalevel, assume only
S K, S≠K, and the axioms

1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy
4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)

I doubt that you will find an easier theory.
(Exercice: prove that x = x)

Bruno

>
> On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply don't
>> believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without actually
>> observing a quantum interference pattern. AG
>
>
> --
> 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
> .
> 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
> .

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 12:34:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises.  If you
> start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation*
> and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state*,
> then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the unique
> probability values.
>
> Brent
>

*So to get Born's Rule, Bruno would have to assume a huge amount IN

>
> On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply don't
> believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without actually
> observing a quantum interference pattern. AG*
>
>
>

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 18:06, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>
>
> I can do that.
>
> I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists such a
> thing as a complex sum whose amplitude squared can be calculated (and
> presumably something implied by arithmetic), how would you know that this is
> the way to calculate probabilities for quantum experiments?  AG
>
> Put another way, there's nothing in pure arithmetic to indicate how to
> calculate a probability in quantum experiments.

I will explain why this is not only false, but why there is no choice once we
assume Mechanism.
Just be a little bit patient.

Bruno

> Same goes for, say, the x and p operators used in QM; and so forth. AG
>
>
> Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version of my thesis
> accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one requires
> some good understanding of the Church’s or Turing’s thesis).
>
> But it might be quicker to read the sane04 paper, and ask me question
> wherever you don’t understand?
>
> The UDA explains informally why, once we assume mechanism, we have to recover
> the physical appearance from arithmetic only.
>
> The translation of the UDA in arithmetic gives then all the mathematical
> details to do the extraction of physics, and we have got already the quantum
> logics of the quanta and of the qualia (accepting some definitions of
> course). But this of course asks for learning a bit of mathematical logic
> (“my” idiosyncratic jargon, I guess).
>
> Now, if you prefer to study online, we can do that, step by step. Just take a
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
> .
> (*)
>
> And tell me if you prefer to ask me question, or to do the whole thing step
> by step online.
>
> You might need to be patient, as I am still 500 mails late …
>
> Bruno
>
>
> (*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE
> 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com <>.
>> 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
> .
> 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
> .

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you
start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent
formulation/*and you premise that there is a probability interpretation
of  a state*/, then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule
provides the unique probability values.

Brent

On 11/29/2018 10:23 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply
don't believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without
actually observing a quantum interference pattern. AG*

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 5:06:50 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can do that.
>>>
>>
>> *I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists such a
>> thing as a complex sum whose amplitude squared can be calculated (and
>> presumably something implied by arithmetic), how would you know that this
>> is the way to calculate probabilities for quantum experiments?  AG *
>>
>
> *Put another way, there's nothing in pure arithmetic to indicate how to
> calculate a probability in quantum experiments. Same goes for, say, the x
> and p operators used in QM; and so forth. AG*
>

*Regardless of rules of arithmetic and mathematical logic, I simply don't
believe that something like Born's Rule can be inferred without actually
observing a quantum interference pattern. AG*

>
>
>
> Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version of my
>>> thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one
>>> requires some good understanding of the Church’s or Turing’s thesis).
>>>
>>> But it might be quicker to read the sane04 paper, and ask me question
>>> wherever you don’t understand?
>>>
>>> The UDA explains informally why, once we assume mechanism, we have to
>>> recover the physical appearance from arithmetic only.
>>>
>>> The translation of the UDA in arithmetic gives then all the mathematical
>>> details to do the extraction of physics, and we have got already the
>>> quantum logics of the quanta and of the qualia (accepting some definitions
>>> of course). But this of course asks for learning a bit of mathematical
>>> logic (“my” idiosyncratic jargon, I guess).
>>>
>>> Now, if you prefer to study online, we can do that, step by step. Just
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html.
>>> (*)
>>>
>>> And tell me if you prefer to ask me question, or to do the whole thing
>>> step by step online.
>>>
>>> You might need to be patient, as I am still 500 mails late …
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>> (*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
>>> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference,
>>> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>>
>>
>>
>> I can do that.
>>
>
> *I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists such a
> thing as a complex sum whose amplitude squared can be calculated (and
> presumably something implied by arithmetic), how would you know that this
> is the way to calculate probabilities for quantum experiments?  AG *
>

*Put another way, there's nothing in pure arithmetic to indicate how to
calculate a probability in quantum experiments. Same goes for, say, the x
and p operators used in QM; and so forth. AG*

Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version of my
>> thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one
>> requires some good understanding of the Church’s or Turing’s thesis).
>>
>> But it might be quicker to read the sane04 paper, and ask me question
>> wherever you don’t understand?
>>
>> The UDA explains informally why, once we assume mechanism, we have to
>> recover the physical appearance from arithmetic only.
>>
>> The translation of the UDA in arithmetic gives then all the mathematical
>> details to do the extraction of physics, and we have got already the
>> quantum logics of the quanta and of the qualia (accepting some definitions
>> of course). But this of course asks for learning a bit of mathematical
>> logic (“my” idiosyncratic jargon, I guess).
>>
>> Now, if you prefer to study online, we can do that, step by step. Just
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html.
>> (*)
>>
>> And tell me if you prefer to ask me question, or to do the whole thing
>> step by step online.
>>
>> You might need to be patient, as I am still 500 mails late …
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>> (*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
>> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference,
>> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG
>
>
>
> I can do that.
>

I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists such a
thing as a complex sum whose amplitude squared can be calculated (and
presumably something implied by arithmetic), how would you know that this
is the way to calculate probabilities for quantum experiments?  AG

> Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version of my
> thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one
> requires some good understanding of the Church’s or Turing’s thesis).
>
> But it might be quicker to read the sane04 paper, and ask me question
> wherever you don’t understand?
>
> The UDA explains informally why, once we assume mechanism, we have to
> recover the physical appearance from arithmetic only.
>
> The translation of the UDA in arithmetic gives then all the mathematical
> details to do the extraction of physics, and we have got already the
> quantum logics of the quanta and of the qualia (accepting some definitions
> of course). But this of course asks for learning a bit of mathematical
> logic (“my” idiosyncratic jargon, I guess).
>
> Now, if you prefer to study online, we can do that, step by step. Just
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html.
> (*)
>
> And tell me if you prefer to ask me question, or to do the whole thing
> step by step online.
>
> You might need to be patient, as I am still 500 mails late …
>
> Bruno
>
>
> (*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference,
> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>
>
> --
> 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
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```
> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG

I can do that. Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version
of my thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one
requires some good understanding of the Church’s or Turing’s thesis).

But it might be quicker to read the sane04 paper, and ask me question wherever
you don’t understand?

The UDA explains informally why, once we assume mechanism, we have to recover
the physical appearance from arithmetic only.

The translation of the UDA in arithmetic gives then all the mathematical
details to do the extraction of physics, and we have got already the quantum
logics of the quanta and of the qualia (accepting some definitions of course).
But this of course asks for learning a bit of mathematical logic (“my”
idiosyncratic jargon, I guess).

Now, if you prefer to study online, we can do that, step by step. Just take a
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html.
(*)

And tell me if you prefer to ask me question, or to do the whole thing step by
step online.

You might need to be patient, as I am still 500 mails late …

Bruno

(*) B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE
2004, Amsterdam, 2004.

>
> --
> 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
> .
> 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
> .

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

```Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG

--
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