Re: James Higgo and Four Reasons Why You Don't Exist
Hi Dan, Those are nice questions I would be interested in some answer too. May be I could try to recover from some hard disk the mailing address of James' mother, I will try. James introduced the idea of immortality in the list, and this has been what decided me to susbscribe. I met James in Brussels one month before his accident. James was a very nice guy dedicated to deep fundamental questions, and he was open to both science and eastern religion. he was also very interested in Leibniz. The list certainly miss him. If you get info, please tell us. Perhaps Wei Dai knows better. I'm afraid his book was far from completed. Perhaps you could find who manages his post-mortem web pages? Welcome to the list Dan, Bruno Le 19-déc.-07, à 22:16, freqflyer07281972 a écrit : Hi everyone, This is my first post to this group. I find so many of the posts so fascinating, but I am still immersing myself in the discussion, so forgive the somewhat trivial direction of the present post. I found a website memorializing James Higgo's thoughts on quantum physics, quantum immortality, etc. From what I understand, he was a prolific contributor to this group right up until is tragic and untimely death (in this universe, at least) in 2001. The page http://www.higgo.com/ quantum/fourreasons.htm offers an intriguing 'synopsis' of a book called Four Reasons Why You Don't Exist, including word counts for each chapter. My question is: What is the status of this book? How much of it did Higgo complete? Has it been published? A few searches in some obvious and unobvious places did not uncover to me the existence of this book. Was it a work in progress, and who was handling the details? Any information that anyone might have about this would be greatly appreciated. Cheers Dan http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Cantor's Diagonal
Le 19-déc.-07, à 21:09, Barry Brent a écrit : Excellent, Bruno, Thanks! Well thanks. I will send a next diagonalization post and some references next week, Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quantum Interference and the Plentitude
Both Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing and Wei Dai's really simple interpretation of quantum mechanics suggest that the mere existence of all possible states is all that is needed to explain quantum mechanics. While I can understand how it would leads to unpredictability I was wondering how is quantum interference accommodated? Thanks, Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Interference and the Plentitude
I'm not sure how Wei Dai would answer this, but this is where it comes from in my theory: Interference, along with most of the other weird aspects of quantum mechanics is a direct result of the measure of observer moments being complex. If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you simply don't get wavelike interference patterns. So why is the OM measure complex and not positive real (like most people assume). Because it can be - complex measures are more general than real valued ones. A real valued measure would require an explanation. Unfortunately, so does a complex valued one, as measures can be even more general than complex valued - see the concept of spectral measure. I suspect division has an important role in order to get real probabilities as ratios of OM measures, and whilst there are still a number of division algebras that can be deployed as measures, possibly the division has to commutative, which would leave just the complex numbers. Alternatively, perhaps the use of these more general spectral measures give exactly the same result as using a complex-valued measure. It would be interesting to develop alternative QM formulations using modules over division rings rather than vector spaces to see if there would be any physically measurable effect of (say) relaxing the requirement of commutivity of multiplication. Alas, this is well out of my comfort zone, so I'll have to pass the baton on to some other foolhardy individual. Cheers On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:18:59PM -0800, Jason wrote: Both Russell Standish's Theory of Nothing and Wei Dai's really simple interpretation of quantum mechanics suggest that the mere existence of all possible states is all that is needed to explain quantum mechanics. While I can understand how it would leads to unpredictability I was wondering how is quantum interference accommodated? Thanks, Jason -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
