On 29 Mar 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/29/2012 10:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED.

I will ask you to do the "hairsplitting" about that "YOU", that you are using here, so as to convince me and others that it refutes indeed the indeterminacy about the first person experience displayed in the WM duplication thought experience (UDA step 3).

Given that we both agree that we don't die in that experience, and given that you are the one claiming that there is no indeterminate outcome, I will ask to give us an algorithm predicting the result of the future self-localization experience.

The outcome is deterministic just like Everett's QM is deterministic. And it has the same problems being given a probabilistic interpretation as EQM. If you duplicated a coin in the transporter experiment the question, "Where will you expect to find the coin." has the same problems as "Where do you expect to find yourself". The implication is that "self" is not a unique 'thing' (as for example a soul is assumed to be) but is process that can be realized in different media.

I agree. But the experience is lived as unique, so we can follow Plotinus in using the term soul for the owner of the 1-view, that is, the knower. From its pov, it is not duplicable, in the trivial sense that the duplication is never part of his experience. He would not know if we did not give him the protocol. mathematically, this is related to the fact that no machine can know which machine she is, already seen clearly by Post and (re)intuited by Benacerraf, and "intuited" by the machine itself, accepting the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge.

I am not sure the problem of probability is identical in QM and COMP. In QM, Everett showed that the P = A^2 principle does not depend on the choice of the base, so that A can be considered as measuring the relative proportion of possible accessible relative realities. This does not work with finite multiverse, but it works with infinite multiverse, and Gleason theorem justifies the unicity of the measure, for sufficiently complex physical reality (meaning the Hilbert space have to be of dimension bigger than 2. So in my opinion, the Born rule is already explained.

With COMP, as I argue, we have to justify the wave itself (assuming QM is correct) from the relative number relations and personal points of view (as done in AUDA, for the logic of "measure one").

Bruno

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 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