On 1 April 2012 07:04, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I think he just proposes pruning the density matrix cross-terms by some
> mechanism.  Once they are gone then the realized branch is just 'selected'
>  stochasitcally per the Born rule.  I've often contemplated such a move
> based on the idea that there be a smallest non-zero quantum of probability;
> but I've not seen a way to make that work.

Thanks for that clarification.  That being said, he is nevertheless
explicit that the crucial distinction between what he wants to suggest
and MWI is that only one branch can be considered as having been
actualised. Given his scepticism about Wallace's analysis of the
probable subjective consequences of duplication, this is what he feels
he needs for his scheme to be plausible in the face of the empirical
facts.

By the way, the reasons he gives for that scepticism seem to me to
imply some sort of individuated crypto-dualism.  For example, he says
that Wallace doesn't address the possibility that "future copies"
might be subjectively discontinuous with the "you" that exists
presently; consequently that particular "you" could be consigned to
subjective oblivion.  He concedes that, whether considered physically
or informationally, the copies possess every feature that presently
determines your empirical self-identification.  The conjunction of
these two stipulations suggests that, despite everything, some
"personal essence" is not copied; rather, each doppelganger acquires
its own freshly minted personal self-hood, and "yours" is annihilated.

I've attempted to conceive how one might put this to the test, even in
imagination, but I've not come up with anything.  This kind of rampant
confusion over pronouns is the chief reason I favour the universal
mind heuristic as a way of conceiving the subjective state of affairs.
 In terms of this heuristic, "I" always denotes the unique but
discontinuous subjectivity of an infinity of self-ordering personal
histories.  Since the subjective locus is not itself subject to
change, every perspective is "mine", but not all perspectives are
associated with David Nyman.  It may seem strange at first, but it
unravels surprisingly many of the conceptual puzzles.

David

> On 3/31/2012 11:11 AM, David Nyman wrote:
>>
>> The alternative to this analysis is to abandon MWI (or comp) as
>> inconsistent with the empirical facts.  This is the tack Kent in fact
>> adopts, proposing a mechanism for the pruning of all but one of the
>> alternative branches,
>
>
> I think he just proposes pruning the density matrix cross-terms by some
> mechanism.  Once they are gone then the realized branch is just 'selected'
>  stochasitcally per the Born rule.  I've often contemplated such a move
> based on the idea that there be a smallest non-zero quantum of probability;
> but I've not seen a way to make that work.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>> in the absence of which he clearly feels the
>> empirical facts cannot be justified.  I don't happen to agree with his
>> reasons, but such a proposal is consistent with his view of the likely
>> subjective consequences of duplication.
>
>
> --
> 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.

Reply via email to