On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 [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/ > > > > 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 [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. > > > > -- > 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/ > > > > 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 [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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
