Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D > Jones > >> The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a >> Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one >> distinguishing "real" ones from "coincidental" ones. How does a Harry >> Potter film differ from a documentary? > > The only way I know of that the MWI distinguishes these is that the > "measure" of the "real ones" is Vastly larger than the "measure" of the > rest. But that is just restating things. Except, I would say that QM-without-collapse + decoherence theory explains the measure of the real one is vaster than the measure of the Harry-Potter (HP) stories, and, as DD said himself, why the probability to remains in a Harry Potter story is negligible. In a a-la-Feynman nutshell: QM entails a phase randomization making the HP story amplitude of probabilities self-destroying. But now, most presentation of QM-without collapse assumes the classical turing emulability of the observer. Then, (it is my main point), it remains to explain why we are not confronted with the classical HP stories, which, at least at first sight, have purely additive probabilities and no phase randomization to eliminate the HP one. The high non triviality of the classical turing emulability of the observer hypothesis (computatiionalism), forces to justfify the appearance of (which btw remains true in the Hamerov doctrine where the brain is a quantum machine, it is only false in Penrose doctrine where consciousness is supposed to be both physical and non turing emulable) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
