On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 09:14:11PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >There is certainly no 3rd person experiment that can be done to
> >distinguish between these two interpretations, and the only 1st person
> >experiment I can think of relates to tests of quantum immortality. I
> >find it hard to believe the "no cul-de-sac" conjecture would hold in
> >the latter case.
> If you accept that it makes no first person difference whether there is one 
> or many instantiations of the same observer moment - that it is all one 
> observer moment - then it becomes meaningless to ask whether the observer 
> belongs to just one or to a superposition of all of the instantiations. How 
> would QTI distinguish between the two interpretations?
> --Stathis Papaioannou

I think the latter interpretation would see that there _is_ a
difference between identical instantiations. Since I tend to follow
the first interpretation, as do you by the sounds of things, the
second interpretation looks a little inconsistent, and smacks of
hidden variables. However I note it, as not everyone sees the world in
the same way I do.

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Attachment: pgpRpunZpZq4i.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to