>From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Jacques Mallah wrote
> > It doesn't matter, of course. First, the measure of James-like
>beings (summing over time) is now known to be smaller than we thought it
>would be; that's true no matter what.
>Sometimes you speak like if you *have* solved your "implementation
I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, I might have. My proposal is on my
web page in the Plank Syposium paper
>How could you know now?
What, that his measure was reduced? Surely you heard that news.
To be precise, if the fact that he might die this way was something we
anticipated, then indeed his total measure would be reduced by the event,
but our knowledge of that reduction would not depend on our being in the
world where he died. So we would not have extra reason to feel bad about
the reduction. But this news came as more of a surprise, wouldn't you say?
>With the comp hyp., or just the QM hyp., (and this in a completely provable
>way taking just Everett memory machines in the non relativistic setting),
>you should not sum up on "time", but you must sum up on *all* consistent
>neighborhoods. (Time and space emerges on that eventually through comp).
I don't know what you mean. A couple of points though: 1) You know that
as I've said before, Everett's memory-based formulation is not
computationalist and IMO he would have readily admitted that it was only
meant as a preliminary ansatz to start studying the MWI. 2) The
nonrelativistic setting surely includes space and time a priori.
>You really speak like a quantum Bohmian, discarding quasi-magically all
>computational histories but one.
I never did anything like that, & have no clue why you think I did.
>Decoherence explains only why those "worlds" get rather quickly
>inaccessible for most of *each* of us,
Obviously. Any preschool kid should know that, so why do you bring it
>Why do you put "many world" in your signature?
I put "Many Worlder" to let people know a little about my beliefs.
>The James Higgos of the "other worlds" are zombie or what?
Eh? Why do you ask?
>How do you distinguish yourself from numerically indentical
Depends what you mean. Are the numbers 5 and 6 identical? I don't
think so. But look on a number line at the internal structure of these
points. They look the same. They're just located in different spots, in
this case in Plato's funhouse. Same with two different implementations of
the same computation, whether in Plato's funhouse or a physical world. If
you disagree and say they are the same, give me $6 and I'll give you $5.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp