On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave
interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy
I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just
On 6/26/2014 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jun 2014, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of
QM from the rest, which could be handy
That proof, like any multiverse with no assumptions, includes the
possibility that the earth was supported by a giant over a turtle in a sea
of water and then vanished moments before Magallanes circumnavigated the
globe.
But it add nothing to the beauty of the greek myth. In fact it add nothing
A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and similar to Bruce's
analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the foundational problem, as
usually conceived, as define what FAPP must mean and quantify it in computational terms
(instead of probability units
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave interpretation of QM
from the rest, which could be handy
I doubt that since Bohmian QM is just another way of writing Schrodinger's equation.
On 26 June 2014 04:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave
interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy
I doubt that since
@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:26 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed
Spontaneously From Nothing
On 6/24/2014 7:34 PM, LizR wrote:
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints
On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and
similar to
Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't so much solve the
On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A very interesting paper filling out a conjecture by Scott Aaronson and
similar to Bruce's analysis but with more detail. It doesn't
On 6/25/2014 4:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 11:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 3:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 June 2014 04:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A very interesting paper
Interesting synopsis of a paper on http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207 -- don't have
access though -- so here is the write up. Not sure if this has already been
discussed here or not.
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From
Nothing
A Mathematical Proof That
This item in further reading looks interesting too
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/7ef5eea6fd7a
(Not that I'm not busy here at work...[?] )
On 25 June 2014 12:44, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Interesting synopsis of a paper on
This has a few interesting corollaries, ISTM.
1. It hints that there might be a way to distinguish the pilot wave
interpretation of QM from the rest, which could be handy
2. It hints at eternal inflation (the second bit of support for this in the
last few months, assuming the BICEP results stand
13 matches
Mail list logo
