A lot of terminology here that I'm not familiar with. I'd have to be
convinced that its worth the effort of learning this language before I
could pass a comment on this proposal.
Cheers
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:08:25AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear Russel,
>
> What I am considering is this from
> http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/1999-embed-jfulltext.pdf. The aspect of
> a quantum system that can be embedded into an atomic Boolean algebra or
> related classical structure.
>
> Could this partial image of a QM system be sufficient, given the ability
> of QM system of simulating, function f, classical systems completely, to
> act as a partitioning function, function g, over the operators for
> observables as to seperate them out into mutually consistence subsets?
>
> The idea looks like this:
>
>f
> Q - > {C}
> ^ |
> |g |
>-<--
>
> Where Q is a quantum system and {C} is the set of class of simulable
> classical systems, f being the simulation function and g being the partial
> (non-bijective) map from the Lindenbaum algebra of the classical systems to
> Q.
> This seems to allow for some kind of quotienting or partitioning of the
> operators that make up Q.
>
> I apologize if my question is ill posed. ;-)
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bruno Marchal"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:08:43AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > Dear Russel,
> >
> > Could we associate this "psychological time" with the orderings that
> > obtain when considering successive measurements of various measurements of
> > non-commutative canonically conjugate (QM) states?
>
> The word "successive" implies a time dimension already. I'm not sure
> what you are proposing here.
>
> > Also, re your Occam's razor paper, have you considered the necessity
> of
> > a principle that applies between observers, more than that involved with
> the
> > Anthropic principle? Something along the lines of: the allowable
> > communications between observers is restrained to only those that are
> > mutually consistent. We see hints of this in EPR situations. ;-)
> >
>
> No I haven't considered this second requirement. It would be
> interesting to note whether it is a derivative concept (can be derived
> from the standard QM principles say), or whether it needs to be added
> in as a fundamental requirement (in which case comes the question of
> why).
>
> Cheers
>
> > Kindest regards,
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: Tegmark is too "physics-centric"
> >
> > I think that "psychological time" fits the bill. The observer needs a
> > a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between
> > states.
> >
> > "Physical time" presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in
> > "Occam".
> >
> > It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space
> > dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences,
> > isn't it?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > snip
> >
>
> --
>
>
>
> A/Prof Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
>
>
--
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
