Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning to the end of consciousness ?
Quentin 2011/5/21 John Mikes <[email protected]> > Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...). > > I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL of > them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay > (absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well. > What I take exception to is the *world building role* of an "assumption of > a deterministic evolution of THE(?) wave function. - > Of what??? > > John > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/19/2011 4:31 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> Hi Scerir and Friends, >> >> Thank you for posting this link to N. Gisin’s paper. In it Gisin makes >> a very eloquent and forceful argument against MWI based on the experience of >> free will. >> >> >> Doesn't seem very forceful to me. There's a contradiction between the MWI >> and free will because the MWI assumes deterministic evolution of the wave >> function. But that doesn't show that there is a contradiction between MWI >> and the *experience* of free-will. You could as well say that the feeling >> to time passage is a forceful argument for physical time. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> You can find a talk that he gave on the subject here: >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WnV7zUR9UA >> >> >> I think that Gisin's argument is stunted by the fact that he does not >> consider the effects of multiple entities having free will and instead only >> considers a single entity having free will in the MWI picture. His point in >> the paper that "if a specific interaction with one possible state of affair >> produce a desired effect, this very same specific interaction with most of >> the other - equally real according to many-worlds - state of affairs would >> produce uncontrolled random effects. Hence, it seems that there is no way to >> maintain a possible window for free will in the many-worlds view" is correct >> but the "uncontrolled randomness" is only random because we can only resort >> to an equiprobable ensemble to do calculations of the effects of the >> interaction in that context. >> If we consider multiple observers within the MWI, it seems to me that >> in order for some measure of coherent communications to obtain between them >> there must be something like a super-selection rule on the branches of the >> superpositions such that only those mutually compatible observables are able >> to form a set of mutually true (in the bivalent Boolean sense) in the sense >> of relative commutativity of observables on each time-like (not just >> space-like) hypersurface of a foliation of space-time for those observers. I >> think that this is something that decoherence is pointing toward. >> >> Free will follows from the lack of a priori determinateness of the >> members of that set of observables. Just as we cannot demonstrate a >> computation that can compute whether or not a given computation will halt, >> we can similarly not demonstrate a finite Cauchy hypersurface of initial >> conditions that can uniquely determine both the order of measurements nor >> the mutual results of those measurements. Free Will is the freedom to chose >> the basis of a measurement. >> >> Onward! >> >> Stephen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: scerir >> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:15 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: FREE WILL--is it really free? >> >> Are There Quantum Effects Coming from Outside Space-time? >> Nonlocality, free will and "no many-worlds" >> -Nicolas Gisin >> http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3440 >> Abstract: Observing the violation of Bell's inequality tells us something >> about all >> possible future theories: they must all predict nonlocal correlations. >> Hence Nature is >> nonlocal. After an elementary introduction to nonlocality and a brief >> review of some >> recent experiments, I argue that Nature's nonlocality together with the >> existence of free >> will is incompatible with the many-worlds view of quantum physics. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
