On Mar 4, 5:49 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 04 Mar 2011, at 17:31, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 2:20 pm, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I suspect we all may.
>
> >> Wong states that, important as a grand unified theory might be,  
> >> "... it
> >> is lacking in one important fundamental aspect, viz., the role of
> >> consciousness [which] could in fact be considered the most  
> >> fundamental
> >> aspect of physics."
>
> > How does he know consciousness is fundamental?
>
> Consciousness has been put under the rug by physicists since about  
> 1500 years.

Really? Have daffodils and shopping centres likewise? Physicists
cannot  be accused of neglecting something unless it can be
shown to be something they should prima facie be dealing with.
Physics is the science of the fundamental. If consciousness
is another high level phenomenon, like shopping centres,
it is no business of the physicist. If you think cosnc. is
fundamental, you are making an extraordinary claim and the
burden of proof is on you.

> It has come back through the doubtful idea of the collapse of the wave  
> packet. It is a way to avoid the literal many-worlds aspect of the  
> linear quantum evolution. This has been debunked by many since. See  
> the work of Abner Shimony, for example.
> I remind you that we are in the everything list which is based on the  
> idea that "everything" is simpler than "something".
> Of course Everett has given a comp phenomenological account of the  
> collapse with the linear equation, so that if consciousness collapse  
> physically "the wave, you need a non-comp theory of consciousness.
> Then comp by itself is a theory of consciousness, and does provide a  
> transparent (I mean testable) link with consciousness, not by  
> identifying the mystery of consciousness with a non linear and non  
> mechanical phenomenon (the collapse) but by providing an explanation  
> of the quantum and the linear from the computationalist hypothesis.
>
>
>
> >> Given that conciousness seems all too clearly to be centrally  
> >> involved
> >> in quantum mechanics,
>
> > That isn't clear at all
>
> It is. In the collapse theory, it has to be the collapser (the other  
> theories are too vague, or refuted).

Not at all. Objective collapse theories such as GRW have not been
refuted,
and "spiritual interpretations", like von Neumann's are the vagues of
the lot

> And without collapse, consciousness play the role in providing the  
> meaning of the first person indeterminacy, actually of the notion of  
> first person, from which the (hopefully quantum) many realities are  
> statistically derivable.
>
> Comp makes physics a fundamental modality of consciousness, and in the  
> AUDA, you need only to accept the idea that consciousness is related  
> with an inference of self-consistency (or of the existence of self-
> consistent extension). Physics is then given literally by the weighted  
> relative self-consistent extensions. This is a testable consequence of  
> comp.
>
> Bruno
>
> 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.

Reply via email to