On 14 Feb 2011, at 14:52, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
I wrote the paper to motivate the problem and show how QM is
relevant even though it is not relevant from the usual physics
perspective. I.e. decoherence prevents quantum phenomena from being
relevant from the mechanistic point of view and you are then led to
approach the problem from the point of view of classical physics.
At the end of the paper, I argue that one should reverse the logic.
I don't delve into the details of how exactly to do this. So, my
pepar is not incompatible with any paradigm that starts from
mathematical reality.
But mechanism does not start from mathematical reality. It starts only
from the assumption that the physical brain is Turing emulable at some
level. This is still true if we assume that the brain is a physical
*quantum* computer, and even if the (generalized) brain is bigger than
the galaxy.
The fact that we need no more than a mathematical, or arithmetical
reality is in the conclusion. It is the result, not an assumption at
all (unlike Tegmark's approach).
It makes mechanism testable by showing how to extract physics (the
belief in physics by universal numbers) from arithmetic.
My point here is that if you assume comp you have a type of 'white
rabbits' which need to be hunted away *without* using quantum mechanics.
Bruno
Citeren Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
Saibal,
You (still?) miss the first person indeterminacy. It leads to
mathematicalism, even arithmeticalism, but it put self-referential
constraints on how the physical realities, appaers actually how
the coupling consciousness/realities (a sort of Galois connection)
arise from arithmetic.
That's a bit astonsihing for an participant on this list. You
proposal is wrong at the start, I think. You are not aware of the
mind-body problem once you have comp, as you postulate yourself.
Your way of hunting the white rabbist still hides the first person
rabbits. Too easy! You can't postulate the quantum laws.
Bruno
On 29 Jan 2011, at 16:51, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
On this list we've talked about "observer moments" (OM) quite a
lot, but I always found the notion that some pattern represents
a conscious state to be problematic.
I have written up a draft of a paper, see here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4472
One can use the reasoning in the end of the paper to give a
derivation of the Born rule by applying a similar formal
reasoning as Zurek in this paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5082
I plan to do that later.
Saibal
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
