Hi Bruno,

I might have partly answered your query in my response to
Russell. I am not sure.

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
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 only SWE?

(YD = accepting an artificial brain for some level of description ("Yes Doctor");
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 does it
(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 that Everett 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...

Best regards,


Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to