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. James > -----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 > 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 >