tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post5667985365434123836..comments2022-05-19T07:55:48.367-07:00Comments on God Plays Dice: Tegmark's mathematical universeMichael Lugohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15671307315028242949noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-19269645977694942102008-06-18T11:08:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:08:00.000-07:00Carver A. Mead expressed some contrarian views on ...Carver A. Mead expressed some contrarian views on electrodynamics in his <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/94/12/6013.pdf" REL="nofollow">article</A> that he later developed into a <A HREF="http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8990" REL="nofollow">book</A> containing some sharp criticisms of the dogmas used in quantum theory and an earnest attempt to make "the quantum jumps" understandable, at least in quantum electrodynamics. His <A HREF="http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_archive.html" REL="nofollow">interview</A> to the American Spectator contains some interesting observations about sociological aspects of science. Enjoy.mishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166708933155105921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-20016670904617694202008-06-18T11:06:00.000-07:002008-06-18T11:06:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.mishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166708933155105921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-30521164910150667012008-06-18T09:46:00.000-07:002008-06-18T09:46:00.000-07:00The Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM also wouldn't...The Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM also wouldn't allow trajectories to be describable by simple strands --- and it is observer independent (in the sense that it considers observers such as ourselves to also be subject to QM, in opposition to the Copenhagen interpretation).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, because it posits that all of QM can be reduced to unitary evolution (with apparent collapses being due to bifurcation of conscious experience across different terms of a quantum superposition), it does reduce the evolution of the entire universe to a single curve in a very large phase space.<BR/><BR/>But yes, as misha remarks, it is all essentially theology.AgainstWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14682868442299622498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-53145657606646026142008-06-17T18:31:00.000-07:002008-06-17T18:31:00.000-07:00There's an "Ithaca interpretation" of quantum mech...There's an "Ithaca interpretation" of quantum mechanics:<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013<BR/><BR/>I think it's based heavily on Rovelli's relational interpretation:<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002<BR/><BR/>Here's another interpretation you might enjoy:<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9404022Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281785407407667986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-91393525348603721282008-06-17T17:24:00.000-07:002008-06-17T17:24:00.000-07:00Here is yet another interpretation of quantum mech...<A HREF="http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/" REL="nofollow">Here</A> is yet another interpretation of quantum mechanics that offers some insight into why the probability is the square of the absolute value of the amplitude. Sorry, it's not named after a city, but the author of this interpretation is a novelist.mishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166708933155105921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-17834699857121942382008-06-17T17:16:00.000-07:002008-06-17T17:16:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.mishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166708933155105921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-33059890252215401642008-06-17T16:47:00.000-07:002008-06-17T16:47:00.000-07:00I had already made a couple of remarks on this art...I had already made a couple of remarks on this article <A HREF="http://micromath.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/shut-up-and-calculate" REL="nofollow">elsewhere</A>. I want to add that even if the universe is a mathematical equation and we know it, it doesn't mean that we can analyze or solve this equation, even numerically, in all the details. The Navier-Stokes equation, that is itself an idealization, is one of the most notorious examples. Even if the unverse had been described exactly by classical mechanics, we would have needed probability theory to deal with thermodynamics, for example. See section 38-6, "Philosophical implications," in Volume 1 of The Feynman Lectures for an insightful discussion. So Tegmark's speculations strike me as more theological than having anything to do with any practical aspects of science.mishahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01166708933155105921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-264226589944705290.post-16531968551702413882008-06-17T15:53:00.000-07:002008-06-17T15:53:00.000-07:00That's why I prefer the ensemble interpretation: i...That's why I prefer the ensemble interpretation: it's the application of "shut up and calculate" to quantum physics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com