On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measurement. How are these universes distinct from one another?
Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binary measurement,
or do infinitely many come into existence in order that some
branch-counting measure produces the right proportion? Do you not
see any problems with assigning a measure to infinite countable
subsets (are there more even numbers that square numbers?).
And why should we prefer this model to simply saying the Born rule
derives from a Bayesian epistemic view of QM as argued by, for
example, Chris Fuchs?
If you can explain to me how this makes the parallel "experiences",
(then), disappearing, please do.
I don't understand the question. What parallel experiences do you
refer to? And you're asking why they disappeared?
The question is "how does Fuchs prevent a superposition to be
contagious on the observer"
When I read Fuchs I thought this: Comp suggest a compromise: yes
the "quantum wave" describes only psychological states, but they
concern still a *many* dreams/worlds/physical-realities, including
the many self-multiplication.
There is no "many" in Fuchs interpretation, there is only the
personal subjective probabilities of contemplated futures.
I notice the plural of "futures". Are those not "many"?
I know Fuchs criticize Everett, but I don't see how he makes the
superposition disappearing. he only makes them psychological, which is
not a problem for me. there are still "many".
It is still Everett wave as seen from inside.
We just don't know if the dreams defined an unique (multiversal)
physical reality. Neither in Everett +GR, nor in comp.
Bayesian epistemic view is no problem, but you have to define what
is the knower, the observer, etc. If not, it falls into a cosmic
form of solipsism, and it can generate some strong "don't ask"
imperative.
You assume that if others are not explained they must be rejected.
I just ask for an explanation of the terms that they introduce.
Physicists, like Fuchs, and unlike philosophers, are generally
comfortable with not explaining everything.
Me too. but he has still to explain the terms that he is using.
Bruno
Brent
"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system
is a lack of integrity."
--- Fredrick Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
