On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  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 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"
>
>
> I think he takes an instrumentalist view of the wave function - so
> superpositions 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.
>
>
> ?? The math predicts probabilities of events, including where a single
> photon will land in a Young's slit experiment - no superposition of
> observer required.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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"?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> The 'interference' is a calculational event 'between' possible futures.
> Or even the result of considering all possible paths.
>
>
>

According to Fuchs, who does the consideration have to be made by?
 Obviously no person (nor any practical classical computer) could
contemplate all possible paths of a large quantum computation.  So whose
contemplation reifies or interferes with the product of that computation?

Jason


>
>
>
>
>  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".
>
>
>
> Yes, that's why I said I think his approach is consistent with yours.  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 he defends 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 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.
>
>
>
> I think he takes the observer as primitive and undefined (and I think you
> do the same).
>
>
>
>  What? Not at all. the observer is defined by its set of beliefs, itself
> define by a relative universal numbers.
>
>
> Fuchs defines 'the observer' as the one who bets on the outcome of his
> actions.
>
>
>  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 generally
> comfortable 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 what I've
> heard is that it's an inside view of arithmetic - which I don't find very
> enlightening.
>
>
>  What do you miss in the UDA?
>
>
> As I understand it the UD computes everything computable and it's only
> your inference that observers (and the rest of the multiverse) *must be in
> there somewhere* because you've assumed that everything is computable.
>
>
>
>
>  Fuchs, correctly I think, says an 'interpretation' of a theory, the
> story that goes along with the mathematics, is important insofar as it
> gives you insight into how to apply the mathematics and to extend your
> 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.
>
>
> It's kinda funny to see "only...psychological" from a guy who wants to
> show that everything is a shared dream.
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> Is it?  What's an electron then?  What's John K. Clark?  I don't see that
> these things are defined *in that theory* at all.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  And this explains both 100% matter and 99,999... % of consciousness. The
> explanation might be false, of course, but is testable.
>
>  Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>  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 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.com
> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date: 10/11/13
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>   http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6742 - Release Date: 10/11/13
> --
> 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.
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to