Le 07-août-06, à 15:52, W. C. a écrit :

>> From: Bruno Marchal
>> ...
>> Comp says that there is a level of description of yourself such that 
>> you
>> survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will 
>> simulate
>> not only that level but all level belows. So comp makes the following
>> prediction: if you look at yourself or at you neighborhood 
>> sufficiently
>> close enough, you can in principle detect, indirectly, (by computing 
>> the
>> relative comp histories) the presence of all the sublevel 
>> computations.
> Are you talking about meditation?

Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like observing 
your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an 

> I still can't see how "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of
> interfering computations".
> Common people can touch and feel the matter (this physical universe). 
> They
> don't need this strange process to see it.

I would say that here we are trying to explain those "touch and feel 
the matter" without begging the question. My working hypothesis is 

> Your explanation is rather strange.
> As said before, I don't think substitution level exists. So Comp. and 
> won't work here.

Are you saying that your hypothesis is some negation of comp. Then 
there is no problem with my work of course. (Except that many 
consequences that I extract from comp remains derivable by much weaker 
version of comp).

>> So it is enough to observe closely your neighborhood. But of course
>> experimental physicists does exactly that, and the fact that they 
>> infer
>> Many-Worlds (many Histories/many computations) from their 
>> observations can
>> be seen retrospectively as a confirmation of comp.
>> (This explains that up to now, only people with a good grasp of the
>> conceptual difficulties of the quantum theory can swallow the 
>> consequences
>> of comp, more or less).
> I think many good physicist won't agree with you.

Of course those physicist would believe in the wave collapse will have 
more reason than Everett followers to swallow what I say.
To be sure I don't take a "many or even all physicists think this or 
that" as an argument for this or that. Of course it is nice to justify 
why such "wrong" belief can rise.

>> To be sure "negative interferences" remains quite astonishing (after 
>> such
>> an informal reasoning), but then if you take into account the results 
>> in
>> computer science and mathematical logic, there are evidence that 
>> "negative
>> interference" appears as related to some variant of the incompleteness
>> phenomena. This is somehow counter-intuitive and hard to justify in
>> "french". More in a summary which should come asap. I hope this 
>> already
>> helps.
> Please provide more explanation.
> Thanks.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to