----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here is the first interesting point. I haven't finished rereading
> Russell's
> Occam Razor paper to my complete understanding, but from what I
> understand
> Russell argues that mathematically QM gives the greatest measure for
> SAS's.
> However, I am still not sure where the MWI of QM (i.e., actual
> splittings)
> explicitly fits in.

I think Russell has already given his own views on this.

> Here is where I think things can potentially get messy. There is nothing
>
> forbidding splittings (Everett or other) into an infinite number of
> branches, as
> long as the ratio of branches follows the expected a priori probability
> (e.g.,
> 50% for a single coin toss). In fact, within the AUH, this case should
> dominate
> those universes where finite splittings occur.

I basically agree (except that the coin toss needs to be a quantum event for
Everett), but see below.

> Without Everett splittings, you can still have an infinite number of
> "pre-existing" copies of the single world.

Fine,  but you can do the same for the Everett higher universe (sometimes
called multiverse) as well - the information cost of the repetitive element
still has to be added. (Effectively this is an example of '>n' case I
mentioned before, where cancelling through occurs; Everett splittings are in
the '<n' region because they are essential for SAS's in Everett's scheme.)
(Incidentally this is one area which illustrates one of the potential
pitfalls of using the TM-computational approach as a model: the 'loop-back'
('return to start') command implies an immediate maximal repetitive factor,
with little information cost, which could distort measure calculations. I
prefer a more general informational approach.)

Alastair




Reply via email to