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