On 09-Sep-02, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Brent,
>> > Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>> Bohm's QM is empirically identical with
>>>> Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So
>>>> what does it have to do with AI and the duplication of
>>> We (John + me) were refering to Bohm's book "the
>>> order" where Bohm takes some non comp stand.
>> Also his interpretation of QM is contradictory with comp,
>> the sense than he does not attribute consciousness to the
>> people in the other branches,
>> BreMe: But in BQM there are no "other branches". The world
>> is completely deterministic. The apparent randomness is just
>> a reflection of our incomplete knowledge of the universal
> I disagree: in Bohm QM there *are* other branches. This
> follows from the fact that there is no collapse. The SWE is
> obeyed. Bohm just add a potential which forces a (mysterious)
> set of particles with very special initial conditions to
> follow one branch of the universal superpositions. But to
> explain the interference Bohm accepts the existence of the
> other branches even if they are lacking particles. And to
> explain the behavior of a quantum computer even in just "our"
> branch, a Bohmian must accept that the computers of the other
> branches are able to make reasoning like any AI, even if they
> lacks particles. So Bohm is forced to abandon comp, as he
> does. (This illustrates also that existence of particles is
> hardly necessary with comp).
There need not be any collapse to explained the point-like
interactions because there interactions are between particles.
The particles move in accordance with a potential which
exhibits interference. This potential is determined by all
the particles in the universe. The probabisltic aspect arises
from the particles having a certain random position
distribution. The theory assumes that the interaction of the
particles and their potential has put them into equilibrium
distribution. The probabilistic aspect comes form our lack of
knowledge of this distribution. See
Since the theory is completely deterministic, there is only one
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
--- Neil Bothwick