If DM results in a cosmic consciousness that can make choices,
could not it choose to select a single world from the many possible worlds?
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2011, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2011, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
>>> Brent wrote (and thanks for the reply):
>>>> (JM):...In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos
>>>> is: "I don't know" and stochastic is sort of a random. ..."
>>>> BM: Not necessarily. Why not free-up your mind to think wider and
>>>> include the thought that some randomness may be intrinsic, not the result
>>>> ignorance of some deeper level?
>>> OK. (BM = Brent Meeker, here, not me). But I agree with Brent, and a
>>> perfect example of such intrinsic randomness is a direct consequence of
>>> determinism in the computer science. That is what is illustrated by the
>>> iteration of self-multiplication. Most observers, being repeatedly
>>> duplicated into W and M, will have not only random history (like
>>> WWMMMWMMMWWWWWMWMMWWM ...) but a majority will have incompressible
>>> experience, in the sense of Chaitin. Self-duplication gives an example of
>>> abrupt indeterminacy (as opposed to other long term determinist chaotic
>>> In particular, the empiric infered QM indeterminacy confirms one of the
>>> most startling feature of digital mechanism: that if we look below our
>>> computationalist subtitution level , our computations (our sub-level
>>> computations) are random.
>> This is a consequence of the no-cloning theorem, which in turn is a
>> consequence of unitary evolution of the wf. It is curious that the
>> deterministic process at the wf level implies randomness at the level of
>> conscious experience.
> This is easily explained by the digital mechanist assumption, through
> self-duplication. No need of QM, except for a confirmation of comp.
> Note that he non cloning theorem is itself a consequence of digital
> mechanism. In fact all the weirdness of quantum mechanics are obvious in
> digital mechanism (DM, which does not postulate QM). Indeed DM entails first
> person indeterminacy, first person plural indeterminacy (many worlds), first
> person non locality, and it is an "easy" exercise to show that it entials
> non cloning of matter, and non emulability of matter (and thus the falsity
> of digital physics a priori).
> It is still an open problem if unitarity follows from comp, as it should if
> both DM and QM are correct. But the room for unitarity is already there,
> because the logic of arithmetical observability by machine/numbers is indeed
> a quantum logic. Comp can be said to already implies that the bottom
> physicalness is symmetrical and non clonable. The arithmetical qubit cannot
> be cloned nor erased (nor emulated by a digital machine, and this is perhaps
> not confirmed by QM!).
> Bruno Marchal
> 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
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at