Hi Russell,

Thanks for the clarification on the White Rabbit issue.
That is helpful.

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:27:19 +1000
Subject: Re: subjective reality

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:19:34AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My argument is not based on the White Rabbit Problem since I don't
> even know what that is, in all honesty! From reading Brunos's "popular
> account" I gather it has something to do with the possibility of
> finding
> unruly or unexpected things once you believe the kind of "theory" he
> and, I guess you, profess. No?

Another name for the White Rabbit problem is failure of
induction. Basically, it is the possibility that any/all of our laws of
science may suddenly stop being applicable. It bedevils most ensemble
theories of everything.

Oh! In that case I don't think my argument qualifies as a White Rabbit
but you may think otherwise. I have set it up the other way around, that is, imagining a situation in which the laws (or consequences) of QM defeat the possibility of the "substitution" envisaged in the YD hypothesis. You can always appeal for "an exemption from the laws of physics" that would still make the process go and that would be a White Rabbit, I guess. But I don't think
that qualifies as a loophole...

There is a subtler style of argument involving the "need" for laws of nature altogether that occurs sometimes in QM and, blocks out an exit route from my
argument which is referred to sometimes as the "Demiurge Problem".

> Without meaning to disrespect your solutions, I think Quantum
> Mechanics
> produces a very good deal of "White Rabbits" on its own, and by this
> I mean predictions that thwart any of the everyday type of expectations
> you place on reality!

That is not what is meant by White Rabbits. Predictions of QM are
entirely lawlike even they're unexpected.

Agreed (even if I would put the "lawlike" between quotes).

Interestingly, someone pointed me at a paper by Esche the other day,
arguing that alternative "projection postulates" are compatible with
the MWI. The precise alternative projection postulate they supplied
turns out to be riddled with white rabbits - which makes me speculate
that the Born rule is precisely what you need to kill off all the
white rabbits in the MWI.

I can't say I follow you here. MWI + Projection postulates should reproduce regular Copenhagenian QM since MWI is basically QM - Projection Postulates! Now killing white rabbits with the Born rule!??? If that could be done, seems to
me, would obviate all the need for MWI in the first place, no?

> The argument I believe I have is just a simple working out of the
> premise
> of YD till you get to a situation that our current knowledge of QM can
> defeat. I am sure there are many more that you can think up with a
> bit of reflection.

No, I have a complete "failure of imagination" in this department.

> [RS]
> So it is time to put up or shut up Godfrey! If you have some genuine
> argument against the YD, let's hear it.
> Cheers
> [GK]
> As I stated before I don't react very well to that style of macho
> pressure
> in spite of my (clumsy) attempts to use it on Bruno!

I'm hardly pressuring you, but it is very frustrating to be constantly
told by you that you have an interesting point to make, without you
ever making the point. This is not an email list for egotistical
posturings - people come here to learn stuff. It is fine to post
poorly thought out speculations, noone think any the less of you -
other bright minds can quickly find the glaring flaws in these, and
one learns something in the process, often including the very person
demolishing an argument.


I get your point and I do agree with you, somewhat.
I am leaning towards sketching the argument even
if not for Bruno's benefit any longer. Though it occurred to me as a fly
in his ointment I think it may play a more constructive role in another
dispute which I find interesting. I am much less certain about that
last possibility and could certainly use your wits and those of the other
member of the list in checking it out

Please, bear with me for a little longer while I work this out in some
communicable shape.



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

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

Reply via email to