On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:

## Advertising

On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: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 ameasurement. How are these universes distinct from oneanother? Do they divide into two infinite subsets on a binarymeasurement, or do infinitely many come into existence in orderthat some branch-counting measure produces the rightproportion? Do you not see any problems with assigning ameasure to infinite countable subsets (are there more evennumbers that square numbers?).And why should we prefer this model to simply saying the Bornrule 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 yourefer to? And you're asking why they disappeared?The question is "how does Fuchs prevent a superposition to becontagious on the observer"I think he takes an instrumentalist view of the wave function - sosuperpositions are just something that happens in the mathematics.

`But then I don't see how this could fit with even just the one photon`

`interference in the two slits experiment.`

When I read Fuchs I thought this: Comp suggest a compromise: yesthe "quantum wave" describes only psychological states, but theyconcern still a *many* dreams/worlds/physical-realities,including the many self-multiplication.There is no "many" in Fuchs interpretation, there is only thepersonal subjective probabilities of contemplated futures.I notice the plural of "futures". Are those not "many"?Sure, but they are contemplated, not reified.

`OK. But apparently object of contemplation can interfere with the`

`real, which is a bit weird to me.`

I know Fuchs criticize Everett, but I don't see how he makes thesuperposition disappearing. he only makes them psychological, whichis not a problem for me. there are still "many".Yes, that's why I said I think his approach is consistent withyours. I think Fuchs view of QM is similar to what William S.Cooper calls for at the end of his book "The Evolution of Reason" -a probabilistic extension of logic. This is essentially the view hedefends at length in "Interview with a Quantum Bayesian", arXiv:1207.2141v1

OK.

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 definewhat is the knower, the observer, etc. If not, it falls into acosmic form of solipsism, and it can generate some strong "don'task" 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.I think he takes the observer as primitive and undefined (and Ithink you do the same).

`What? Not at all. the observer is defined by its set of beliefs,`

`itself define by a relative universal numbers. Comp has a pretty well`

`defined notion of observer, with its octalist points of view, and an`

`whole theology including his physics, etc.`

Physicists, like Fuchs, and unlike philosophers, are generallycomfortable with not explaining everything.Me too. but he has still to explain the terms that he is using.What's your explanation for the existence of persons? So far whatI've heard is that it's an inside view of arithmetic - which I don'tfind very enlightening.

What do you miss in the UDA?

Fuchs, correctly I think, says an 'interpretation' of a theory, thestory that goes along with the mathematics, is important insofar asit gives you insight into how to apply the mathematics and to extendyour theories. He is critical of Everett's MWI for not doing that,or at least not doing it well.

`Well, perhaps Fuchs is a bit out of topic, once you agree that it is`

`only Everett in a psychological version. That is close to comp. But`

`comp leads, by UDA, that the theory of everuthing is just elementary`

`arithmetic (or Turing equivalent, like colmbinatirs, ...). Then`

`everything is defined in a very precise way in that theory.`

`And this explains both 100% matter and 99,999... % of consciousness.`

`The explanation might be false, of course, but is testable.`

Bruno

BrentBrunoBrent"I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a systemis a lack of integrity."--- Fredrick Nietzsche, "Twilight of the Idols" --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.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/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date:10/11/13--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.