Le 07-juin-05, à 09:20, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the "Why Occam" discussion so far. I really don't understand
what it means to explain appearances rather than reality.
Well this I understand. I would even argue that Everett gives an
example by providing an explanation of the appearance of a wave
collapse from the SWE (Schroedinger Wave equation) and this without any
And I pretend at least that if comp is correct, then the SWE as an
*appearance* emerges statistically from the "interference" of all
computations as seen from some inner point of view of the mean
But, as I pointed a long time ago Russell is hiding (de facto, not
intentionally I guess :) many assumptions.
It would be nice to expose these "hidden" assumptions. As far as I'm
aware, all my assumptions are exposed and upfront, where at least you
as a reader can decide if you agree, but there is always the
possibility of some that I've missed.
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
is really presupposing a lot. Where does that come from? It presupposes a space/time geometry, continuity, derivability notion for H, topological notion, etc.
To begin with.