Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 08:11:56 -0400
> > I also see that this kind of bisimulation is quite different in detail
> > from the kind that is defined in math papers. It is only approximate
> > for one thing. However it may be algebraically capturable, in the
> > sense that A's simulation of B should be a subalgebra of
> > the algebra characterizing B...
> Umm, so would how would the relation between B's (A'S)
> simulation of A
> and A (B) be defined algebraically?
Of that I am not sure. One would need to work this out in terms of the
of quantum nonlocality.
The question I would ask is this.
Suppose we consider the structure or meaning St(A) of a system A as
consisting of the set of
patterns that can be observed in A
After A and B have interacted, in what sense is B contained in St(A). If
Tr(B) of B is contained in St(A), what is the nature of the transform Tr?
This needs to be answered in terms of the mathematics of quantum theory. A
more elegant algebraic
answer may be gotten out of answering this question in terms of the full
Standard Model (weak + strong
+QM) because this has a richer algebraic structure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:46 JST