On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote:
Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have.
Are you referring to "Quantum Mechanics and Experience" (1992)? I
do not have this book but will add it to my list (if it is the
It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing
in his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett.
I have just finished reading this book. I thank you for
recommending it as it helped me get some familiarity with the math
and the notation. I found the first 120 or so pages quite
infuriating, for he would seeming get so close to the idea of
observers being in superpositions, (teasing and dangling the idea),
while all the time dismissing it as nonsensical.
Without any argument, I agree.
It was not until page 123 he finally admits that it can indeed make
sense, but almost immediately after page 123, and following a
handwavy dismissal of Everett returns to irrationality, until page
130 when he introduces the many-minds theory. Strangely, he claims
that he (Albert) and Barry Loewer introduced the theory, with no
mention of Heinz-Dieter Zeh.
While he defends many-minds well, and says how it recovers locality,
he never explains how many-minds is any better (or different than)
many-worlds. Also, I found it strange that he considered many-minds
and Bohm on equal footing, where Bohm requires additional
assumptions beyond the four quantum postulates, and also Bohm
(lacing locality) is incompatible with special relativity.
It introduces very well QM and the measurement problem, but he is
still, like everybody, believing implicitly in some strong mind-body
thesis, and get irrational, somehow, I agree, in his defense of Bohm.
I would have also attributed the many-minds to Loewer. I know Zeh
mainly for his indexical analysis of time, which I think is correct,
and certainly close to both Many World and Many Mind. If you have some
references on Zeh and Many Mind ...
They all miss, of course, the many "dreams" internal interpretation
of ... elementary arithmetic. It will take time before people awaken
from the Aristotelian naturalism. Most scientists are not even aware
of its conjectural status.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.