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
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> 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
> 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)
> 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.