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 <jami...@gmail.com>

> 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 <meeke...@verizon.net> 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: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> 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 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.
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>  --
>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>



-- 
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 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