I think I've waited long enough... Kurt, you are just a guy who like read 
himself....  You'll never make your point, because you don't have one... you 
just like insulting other people and show your big neck...

By now, your messages goes directly to the trash bin... Ciao and good 
continuation in your research to know if really you're the best...

Quentin

Le Vendredi 26 Août 2005 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
>  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