Hi Joao,

You wrote (in part):

But Bohmian mechanics, the single
example you mention, does not. It is a fully deterministic
interpretation so it determines the singular outcome of each
experiment. So the little connundrum you revel in at the end
of that section simply does not obtain because Bohmians do
not interpret superpositions in the same was as Everettians.

In Bohm's theory there is no collapse of the wave. So it is
indeed as deterministic as Everett formulation of QM.
But Bohm postulates "particles" or "position" as having a
privileged status, and uses the wave, as guiding the particles.
So, it is a many world interpretation; except that all worlds but one
lack the particles.
Now the wave behaves like in Everett, so that the branch which
lack the particles, behave, from inside the branch, exactly
like IF there were particle inside (and this is fortunate because
without this, the branch could not interfere genuinely). Now this means
that with or without particles each branch does the same computations
(good thing, because without this Bohm would be refutated by quantum
Now, with the comp hyp, consciousness is attached to the computation,
not to matter or particles or whatever relatively linked to any choice
of a particular observable). So, with comp, Bohm's move does not
predict unicity of outcome, because you cannot know if you
are in the branch with particles or without (they do the same comput.).
Note that Bohm agrees with this, he explicitely deny comp in some of his
writing, although he hides a little bit that point in his quantum paper.
The fact that Bohm provides an essentially many-world view of QM, and
that the worlds with and without
particles cannot, with comp,  be distinguished has also be seen
by David Deutsch (see his FOR book).
Do you understand? I can make the point yet clearer if you know
quantum computation: just imagine a quantum artificial intelligent
program in a superposition state ... (I let you finish the reasoning).
(And here to be quite precise you need only the strong AI thesis,
which is logically weaker than comp).

Something tells me the rest of your "proof" is likely to be
filled with the same self delusional presumptions as you
so blatantly exihibit here...

This is quite vague. To say the least. It also witness you *do* have
prejudices. And *you* are the one presumptuous, and naively so, for
you admit judging something without having read it !!!
In case you still feel open to mind change, just
follow the links(*), and if you find an error, or any weakness,  in the
proof, let me know. Most of it is rather simple  especially
if you admit some strong form of occam razor. Without it, some points are
more subtle, and have been found independently by Maudlin (ref in my thesis).


Mainly http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m1726.html
and/or http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3044.html


Reply via email to