On 24 Oct 2012, at 15:41, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal


1) OK, so particles don't need a probe to be created from the wave ?

I don't know that. With comp we have not yet clearly a wave. Only consistent extensions obeying some quantum logics. Particles are result of symmetries, more or less geometrical, but comp is not yet clearly justifying the linearities and the symmetries. This might needs generations of mathematical computer theologians.



What's different about consciousness ?

It is more like the mandelbrot sets, the breaking of symmetries spreads into chaotical partial control. Consciousness is an 1p selector in "that".




2) If comp or materialism could work, I'd be happy.

All what I say is that they cannot both work simultaneously. Comp makes the doctrine of weak materialism (the doctrine asserting the existence of ontologically primitive matter) looking like vitalism, which is the Word-Gap wrong type of explanation.

Comp is closer to Pythagorus, Plato, Parmenides, than to Aristotle. yet it explains the "illusion" and justifies a soul/nature vision which is closer to Aristotle, Heraclite, Brouwer.

Comp involves the concept of consciousness, so this should not be so astonishing. Comp tackle both the 1p and the 3p, intuitively in the UDA and formally in the AUDA. In AUDA the soul of any individual is already non nameable, meaning that if comp is true, you already don't know who you are.





But they'd have to be able to handle the self specifically,

By definition it can't. You can only let the self do the work.

A clever computer is a computer which will be bored by its user, and attempt to find other one.




not just imply it.

It can only imply it. As for the handling, you have to abandon it to the self itself.

If not you will be like a mother who gives too much love to the kid.

Bruno




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-24, 07:31:35
Subject: Re: wave function collapse




On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi meekerdb

There are a number of theories to explain the collapse of the quantum wave function
(see below).

1) In subjective theories, the collapse is attributed
to consciousness (presumably of the intent or decision to make
a measurement).


This leads to ... solipsism. See the work of Abner Shimony.







2) In objective or decoherence theories, some physical
event (such as using a probe to make a measurement)
in itself causes decoherence of the wave function. To me,
this is the simplest and most sensible answer (Occam's Razor).



This is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. It forces some devices into NOT obeying QM.








3) There is also the many-worlds interpretation, in which collapse
of the wave is avoided by creating an entire universe.
This sounds like overkill to me.


This is just the result of applying QM to the couple "observer + observed". It is the literal reading of QM.







So I vote for decoherence of the wave by a probe.


You have to abandon QM, then, and not just QM, but comp too (which can only please you, I guess).


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 .


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