-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:17 +0200
Subject: Re: subjective reality


On 31 Aug 2005, at 17:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Brent MeekerWhy do you think YD is inconsistent with QM?


[GK]
Hi Brent,


At this stage of the argument I feel like answering: because Bruno thinks so!


[BM]
Just to be clear: comp gives the comp-correct physics, and from what can be qualitatively and/or quantitatively already be derived, YD is inconsistent with SWE + collapse. I guess you mean QM = Copenhagen QM.

[GK]
As I stated before I believe it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which you can falsify, by a non-local quantum mechanical experiment the type of hypothesis that Bruno calls YD, meaning one scenario in which all your experience (by which I mean what I describe above) is, at some point in your life, replaced by a suitably programmed digital
computer.


[BM]
But YD entails much stronger form of non-locality! As, a priori, YD entails very strong form of non-locality. Proof: see the UDA in my URL.

[GK]
What are you talking about!? Much stronger form of non-locality? By what measure? If that was the case than YD would
be false by an even bigger measure!!!


> Bruno states that he actually knows this to be the case that is the reason I have not given myself the > trouble to try and sharpen up the argument. But I am quite confident that this can be done with a bit of patience
>and the help of the many wonders of quantum states.


[BM]
No. If comp contradicts physics, it will be so by comp being much more non-local and much more non-deterministic (from the observers viewpoints). The mystery is that with comp physics could appears so much computational.

Remember that if comp is true, whatever the physical universe appears to be it cannot be the output of a computation, nor can it be the result of a turing emulation other than a UD. Only the taking into account of incompleteness show that comp cannot be obviously false, as it could seem to be when you understand the hugeness of indeterminacy and non-locality it implies.

[GK]
But isn't your UD a turing emulation? Any "hugeness" of indeterminancy and non-locality would only show that it is obviously false! Only the exact amount of indeterminancy and non-locality would sugget that it may not be "obviously wrong". Non-locality is a non-additive property, not a big pot from which you just take what you need!!!

[BM]
remember also that comp (and thus YD ) is not incompatible with my brain being a quantum computer. Reason: quantum computer are classically emulable.

[GK]
But that does not much help you either if your brain produces correlations that are other than EPR! Than it is NOT a
quantum computer either!!!

[BM]
You should read the proof, I think you have not yet grasped the enunciation of the result. It is all normal given the novelty. What seems to me to be less normal is that you don't want to read it and still want to say something.


Bruno

[GK]
I guess you are right. I think I am more confused about what you are saying than when we started this exchange.

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