On 06/03/11 15:22, 1Z wrote:


On Mar 4, 8:12 pm, Andrew Soltau<andrewsol...@gmail.com>  wrote:
On 04/03/11 19:10, Brent Meeker wrote:>  Collapse "appears" to instruments as 
well as people

We don't have any evidence for that,
Of course we do

That was a rather blanket statement. But if we can doubt the existence of everything but our minds, then we don't have any evidence for it!

But I think it is perfectly tenable to say that we cannot prove that the instruments which appear to us to be collapsed are in fact not collapsed, that there is only the appearance of collapse subjectively. How could one possibly disprove that?
indeed, if we take either the
concept of Wigner's friend or Rovelli's RQM seriously,
We shouldn't take Wigner's friend as proving CCC, since it is
intended as a reductio ad absurdum of it.
OK, but I happen to think it is a precise explanation of how reality works.
And RQM doesn't remotely have that implication.
Yes it does. In RQM the environment is determinate where, and only where, the observer has observed it. If I am Wigner, and my friend goes off and does an experiment, the result is indeterminate in my version of the environment.
this is not the
case.>  - that's why we can shared records of experiments and agree on them.

Or, we can deduce those phenomena simply from the coherence of our
personal systems.>  I'm not sure what you mean by "account for" collapse.

I mean that if there is a unitary linear dynamics, with no collapse, as
in Everett, no physical collapse, then there is the appearance of
collapse only 'in consciousness'.
But Everett can explain the apperarance of collapse to instruments...
he doesn't need consciousness.
Everett states very clearly that with respect to the physical body of the observer there is no collapse. I think the intruments the observer is using come under the same banner, the linear dynamics. He makes it very clear that it is only with regard to the "record of sensory observations and machine configuration" which I equate in his formulation with the functional identity of the observer, that there is the appearance of collapse. This is pretty much exactly the definition of access consciousness, that of which the observer is directly and immediately aware. (In the human observer, I take the record of machine configuration to be the observations of the internal state of the observer, as I explain in detail elsewhere.)
   At least one interpretation of QM, advocated by Peres, Fuchs, and
Omnes for example, is that the "collapse" is purely epistemological. All that changes is our knowledge or model of the state and QM merely
predicts probabilities for this change.
That's what I thought I was saying!
Fits my view.

Brent

--
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