On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or "unique-universe"
are non computationalist dualist theories.
But as Shimony has shown, the idea that consciousness collapse the
leads to many difficulties, like non local hidden variables in
or solipsism in philosophy of mind. Or even just the problem to say
exactly is the collapse, on which all believers in collapse differ.
Computationalism and Everett (QM without collapse) have no problems
that respect, and line up well with the everything-like use of Occam.
I listen currently to Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch. Yet, I
am not convinced that Multiverse is a good explanation.
The multiverse is a logical consequence of "1+1= 2", and mechanism.
You don't need quantum mechanics.
Then quantum mechanics, the first theory in physics succeeding to
survive more that 5 years (indeed about a century now), is very solid,
and based on very simple math, and it confirms the mechanism
So, to avoid the multiverse, you have to postulate very special
physical laws, yet unobserved, and a very special theory of person,
yet unobserved. Why not, but it is very speculative, and seems to be
driven by wishful thinking only.
You could as well defend the theory that the earth is flat, and build
ad hoc rules to explain why it seems to be a sphere.
I personally consider quantum mechanics just as a model.
Yes. It is a theory. An hypothesis, very weird, but strongly supported
by the facts, and whose main weird consequences are also a consequence
of elementary arithmetic, and mechanism (even without any facts).
David Deutsch does not like it, he says that instrumentalism is a
bad philosophy and that we must take physical theories literally.
I agree with Deutsch on this. That is science. Taking ideas seriously,
so that we can change the theories more quickly when refuted. But then
Deutsch uses comp, and very typically, like many, ignore its logical
consequence. So Deutsch does not follow his own philosophy.
In general, I am disappointed by his book. His style, "I know the
truth as this is a good explanation" is far away from skeptical
After all, we know that quantum mechanics and general relativity
contradict to each other. Why then to invest too much time into
interpretations like Multiverse? Why it is useful?
To learn and to try to figure out what happens here and now.
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
For more options, visit this group at