On 18 Oct 2013, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section
4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From the paper:
"What of the crucial question: should Alice1 feel uncertain?
Why, Alice1 is a
good PI-reductionist Everettian, and she has followed what
we’ve said so far. So
she1 knows that she1 will see spin-up, and that she1 will see
spin-down. There
is nothing left for her to be uncertain about.
What (to address Saunders’ question) should Alice1 expect to
see? Here I
invoke the following premise: whatever she1 knows she1 will
see, she1 should
expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she1 should (with
certainty) expect to see
spin-up, and she1 should (with certainty) expect to see spin-
down. (Not that
she1 should expect to see both: she1 should expect to see each.)"
But this is where the basis problem comes in. Why is the
experience classical?
Probably because our substitution level is above (or equal) to
the "QM-level" (defined by the Heisenberg uncertainty)
Why doesn't Alice simply experience the superposition?
She could in case she has a quantum brain (quantum computer brain
for example) so that she can exploit some Fourier transforms of
the thought process in the all the terms of the superposition.
But you have defended often Tegmark's argument that the brain is
classical, and so she can experience only each branch, for the
same reason that the WM-duplicated candidate can experience only
Washington xor Moscow.
Yes, but now you're relying on physics to explain why experiences
are classical - but people keep proposing that experiences or
computation are fundamental and that physics is to be explained in
terms them. In that case you can't appeal to the physics to say
why the experiences are classical.
I assume classical, boolean, platonist (= assuming p v ~p), from
the start, at the meta-level, and for the machines I interview and
studied. You need only to agree that the arithmetical propositions
obeys classical logic. All scientists do that, as it is the simpler
way to proceed. There are no quantum theorem, and quantum proof in
physical books.
Quantum logic is an empirical discovery, and I interpret it
literally (logic of alternative stories).
Some would say that MWI is far from 'literal', but I'll let that pass.
With comp, that empirical reality must be justified by boolean
realities concerning the mind of classical, or not, machines.
It's that last sentence that bothers me. What does "must" mean in
that context?
It means that if I can survive with a digital brain (quantum or
classical) the physics has to arise from that "dream-interference" (to
be short) as explained by the UDA.
I think it means "If my assumptions about a TOE are right then
everything *must* be explained by my assumptions."
No. It is means that if mechanism is right, then materialism is at
best without any purpose (and occam-eliminable), or contradictory.
But then it seems that you and others make a further leap and say
that comp does explain everything - which is quite different than it
"must explain them".
Comp *has to* explain both matter and consciousness.
Consciousness is explained by self-reference + Theaetetus, and matter
is explained by Theaetetus + consistency (changing provability to
probability in the way imposed by the UDA). We can come back on this.
The thought experiences are simpler with a high level description,
which is boolean, but at step seven that restriction is
relinquished, as quantum computer can be emulated by classical
machine, and we must explain why they seem to win the measure game.
Again, "We *must* IF my assumptions are right."
Yes. But that was not trivial to show, and is against the current
trend to believe in both materialism and mechanism.
I was not relying on physics, but not in way which would imply
physicalism.
?? You mean "I was relying on physics, but..."
I was relying on physics to illustrate a point, but the reasoning does
not rely on that physics being fundamental, or matter being primary.
Bruno
Brent
Bruno
--
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.
