On 26 Aug 2005, at 23:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Literally, of course. YD is just a tools for explaining what it is "to be like an Everett memory machine". It is implicit in reducing the quantum uncertainty to the ignorance of which branch we are in a superposition. Mathematically it can be justified by Gleason theorem or by Graham Hartle type of infinite "frequency" operator. See the Preskill's course on quantum computation which makes a nice summary.
I have already answered. The current aim is to derive SWE (by which I mean the correct geometrical-gravity extension of Schroedinger Wave Equation) from comp. I don't expect to derive anything like SWE + collapse (although this is not entirely excluded!). What I have already proved is that 1) if you make the move from "SWE + collapse" to "SWE + comp", then from purely arithmetical reasons you are forced to go the the quite simpler theory "comp". This is the result of the UDA reasoning and you are invited to criticize it: it presuppose some "folk-psychology" and some passive understanding of Church thesis. See the slide of my 2004 SANE paper for a presentation is eight steps. 2) I translate that reasoning into the language of a large class of universal machine and got more constructive description of the physics you need (by "1)") to derive from comp. This is technically more involved. It suppresses the need of the folk psychology. Bruno |
- Re: subjective reality Bruno Marchal
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod
- Re: subjective reality Bruno Marchal
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod
- Re: subjective reality Russell Standish
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod
- Re: subjective reality Russell Standish
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod
- Re: subjective reality kurtleegod
- Re: subjective reality John M
- Re: subjective reality Bruno Marchal

