Bruno, 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? Richard Ruquist
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 >>>> of >>>> 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 >>> behavior). >>> >>> 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 > > 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@example.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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.