I hate to admit it but Jacques does a reasonable job of explaining how
classical probability translates into the MWI view in his last posting.
Essentially, a probability refers to the proportion of universes subsequent
to yours (using your personal arrow of time).

Could you refer me to Schmidhuber ?

If you would like the english version of your thesis proof-read at some
stage, I would be happy to do so.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 January 1999 09:22
> To:   Higgo James
> Subject:      RE: Amoeba croaks -
> Hi James,
> > But I think we need to be
> >clear that classical probability is merely the way we perceive the
> >relationship between universes in MWI.
> This sound interesting but I am not sure I understand you fully, and I 
> would  be happy if you could be a little more specific. Some people would 
> say that classical logic is the internal logic of individual branch in 
> the MWI.
> My personal feeling (let us say) is that classical logic is the simplest 
> logic of communication between people-and/or-apparatus. This idea appear 
> to Bohr, but also Brouwer (the founder of intuitionnist (the first modern 
> non classical logic)). It is not unlike your idea once we look at people 
> as turing machines (perhaps). 
> >The thesis is impressive and the images came out perfectly. 
> Glad to hear that !  
> > My French is
> >lousy but is C.2.3 not Max's experiment?  Did you think of it first,
> >simultaneously, or later? I look forward, anxiously, to the English
> > version.
> Indeed C.2.2 and C.2.3. are "Max's experiment". I publish the idea in my 
> 1988 (french) paper, and in my 1991 (english) paper. As far as I know I 
> am the first having publish that. I discover later the idea in Hans 
> Moravec's book "Mind Children" (also 1988, Harvard University Press). I 
> guess Max didn't notice these works, because he comes from physics and 
> cosmology. 
> I find Max's paper (Many Worlds or Many Words) very interesting, although 
> I differ in the conclusion. There are also big similarities (and big 
> differences) between Max's TOE and what I call Mechanism. I guess there 
> are interesting common points with Schmidhuber too. But I don't think 
> computationnalism put the metaphysical question away : quite the 
> contrary, computationnalism makes these problem (mathematically) 
> formulable.
> Please be patient for the english version because I am rather busy. You 
> can also try to get my papers with the bibliography in the thesis (in a 
> pre-internet manner, you know !).
> Best luck for your thesis.
> Bruno

Reply via email to