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
>> survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will
>> not only that level but all level belows. So comp makes the following
>> prediction: if you look at yourself or at you neighborhood
>> close enough, you can in principle detect, indirectly, (by computing
>> relative comp histories) the presence of all the sublevel
> 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).
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> an informal reasoning), but then if you take into account the results
>> computer science and mathematical logic, there are evidence that
>> 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
> Please provide more explanation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at