Dear Tim and scerir,
I am VERY interested in this discussion! ;-) It seems to me that fact
that the amplitudes of observables in QM are complex valued and thus do not
obey trichotomy may be at the root of the difficulty. When we attempt to
make sense of situations such as those we obtain in
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 07:47 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Tim and scerir,
I am VERY interested in this discussion! ;-) It seems to me that
fact
that the amplitudes of observables in QM are complex valued and thus
do not
obey trichotomy may be at the root of the
I think on this list we should be willing to seriously consider the
many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics as the ontology for
our universe. In particular, we should not assume that wave function
collapse is anything more than an illusion caused by decoherence
of formerly
Hal Finney wrote:
Quantum randomness does not exist in the MWI. It is an illusion caused by
the same effect which Bruno Marchal describes in his thought experiments,
where an observer who is about to enter a duplication device has multiple
possible futures, which he treats as random.
Could
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
I think on this list we should be willing to seriously consider the
many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics as the ontology
for
our universe.
I remain agnostic on the MWI or EWG interpretation. While I don't
Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
There are a few objections which I am aware of which have been raised
against the MWI. The first is its lack of parsimony in terms of
creating a vast number of universes. We gain some simplification in
the
Dear Tim,
Thank you for the reply but ... Well, I did not mean to imply that we
should look to Egan's fictional character for actual theories or any other
novel or fiction... I think that I asked you a similar question before
regarding the idea that Egan is discussing using the fictional
OOPS! I sent this reply only to Hal - instead of the list.
So here's the fwd to the list.
Brent Meeker
On 04-Sep-02, Hal Finney wrote:
I think on this list we should be willing to seriously
consider the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum
mechanics as the ontology for our universe.
On 04-Sep-02, Hal Finney wrote:
Brent - FYI you sent your comment just to me again. I
don't know if you intended to send it to the list or not.
But I will reply just to you based on how you sent it.
Sorry, Hal - my mistake.
You wrote:
I have always had two problems with the MWI. Initially
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tues. Sept. 3, 2002 8:26AM
It also depends on the logic that one chooses (e.g., Lukaciewicz/Rational
Pavelka and Product/Goguen and Godel fuzzy multivalued logics - see P. Hajek
Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logics, Kluwer: Dordrecht 1998 for an excellent
I'll say a few words on my personal journey in math.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 08:46 AM, Osher Doctorow wrote:
One confusing point, I think, is the tendency of many mathematical
logicians
to identify with algebra and in fact to claim that their field is a
branch
or outgrowth of
Tim May:
I don't have a comprehensive theory of time,
but I am very fond of causal time.
Sometimes we read papers saying there is now
experimental evidence that quantum phenomena
are a-causal or non-causal or out-of-time.
See, in example, these recent papers
On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 02:21 PM, scerir wrote:
Tim May:
I don't have a comprehensive theory of time,
but I am very fond of causal time.
Sometimes we read papers saying there is now
experimental evidence that quantum phenomena
are a-causal or
On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 09:22 PM, Osher Doctorow wrote:
From: Osher Doctorow [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mon. Sept. 2, 2002 9:29PM
It is good to hear from a lattice theorist and algebraist, although I
myself
prefer continuity and connectedness (Analysis - real, complex,
functional,
14 matches
Mail list logo
