From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com; Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:53:41 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality

Sorry for answering late, but I got some hardware problem.


On 23 Aug 2005, at 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[GK]

> 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!)



[BM]
This I knew. The collapse is hardly compatible with comp (and thus YD). Even Bohm de Broglie theory, is incompatible with YD.



[GK]
> 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...

[BM]
I do think so. See Deutsch book which make clear that the MWI is based on comp. But it is explicit in Everett and in Wheeler assessment. From a strict logical point of view, ad hoc non comp theory of MWI can be built but it is really out of topic.


[GK]
That may be Deutsch's opinion (though, again, I doubt he says anything like that in his book) but I have read both Everett's thesis and both Wheeler's and DeWitt's defenses of it and in no way shape or form does anything like YD
even figure in them!!!


[GK]
> 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...


[BM]
This is true for all context. Nevertheless "my theory" does not assume QM. My point is that QM must be derivable from comp in case comp is true (making comp completely testable). QM is NOT *assumed* in comp, indeed one of my goal is to explained where the laws of physics come from, so I should better not presuppose them.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[GK]
Let me understand this: your aim is to derive QM from an hypothesis which, you know, is contradicted by QM ?!!!? Wow!

I only have two words for you Bruno: good luck!

Best regards,

Godfrey,






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

Reply via email to