I might have partly answered your query in my response to
Russell. I am not sure.
(New Brunswick, NJ)
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Le 22-août-05, à 17:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> I guess I spoke too soon...
Do you think that YD is incompatible with (SWE + collapse) or with
(YD = accepting an artificial brain for some level of description
SWE = Schroedinger Wave Equation).
I believe that YD is incompatible with the whole formalism of QM which
I don't quite think is simply reducible to Unitary Evolution plus
Collapse, by the way.
But if you put it that way, yes, it is the conjunction of both that
(and entanglement, of course!)
Imo, YD is the driving motor of the Everett "interpretation" of QM.
I am afraid I don't understand what you mean by this! Are you saying
based his interpretation of QM on the premise that YD is true? I
strongly doubt that...
What is your opinion about quantum suicide, quantum immortality, and
their comp (a priori more general) form?
The short answer to that is that I agree with Milan Circovic (and
David Lewis) on the issue of quantum suicide:
[Check what he says on Everett, by the way...]
Plus I think much the same can be said about quantum immortality a few
other Deutschian and Tiplerian notions
that you take, let us just say, a little too much to the letter. The
general idea is that one has to be extremely
careful in the use of conventional terms in the quantum context
because they may not even be definable...
I can give you a longer answer, but you would like it even less...
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.