Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 09 Apr 1999 19:55:21 -0400
Peter Wegner wrote:
> I have recently been added to the time group and have a response to the
> following comment by Ben.
> > When a random collapse occurs, of course it is constrained to within a
> narrow range of choices. Otherwise the universe would be complete chaos!
> A so called random collapse occurs when we attempt to observe the universe.
> I claim that this observed randomness is not inherent in the universe, but is simply the revealing > of properties of a system state that has been subject to unobserved modifications by effects such as random > noise.
Micheal C. Mackey's work looks into this. cf. Time's Arrow: The Origins
of Thermodynamic Behaviour. Springer-Verlag, 1992.
> In the multi-stream interaction machine model (MIM) there is a primary observer with secondary observers > that may affect the system in ways that are unobservable to the primary observer.
> Secondary observers may cause system changes that are interpreted as random by the primary observer when the > primary observer makes an observation.
> According to this viewpoint a random collapse is not random but is caused
> deterministically by unobservable secondary observers.
In the Local Systems model, it seems like we have asymptotic
determinism, which is consistentent with your claim. :)
> The above model appears consistent with observation and explains perceived
> nondeterminism in accordance with Einstein's principle that God does not play dice.
> Observed randomness is due to limitations of the observer rather than to inherent randomness of the > universe.
Can we quantify this observed "ramdomness" in terms of the ability of a
give observer to predict the interface behaviour of other observers; is
this related to "expressiveness"?
> This explanation of randomness is simply a hypothesis at this stage, but I
> believe it could be tested.
> Devising an experiment that distinguishes between this hypothesis and
> random collapse is a challenge.
> I believe that an extension of the experiment that demonstrated the Bell inequalities could possibly provide > a framework for testing this hypothesis.
> Alain Aspect showed the Bell inequalities by considering interactions among two particles.
> If we extend this experiment to the interaction of three particles we can model a MIM and provide a > framework for testing the hypothesis.
Is the property of associativity involved, e.g. a*(b*c) =/= (a*b)*c ?
Onward to the Unknown,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST