On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 same).
>>>
>>>
>>> It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing in
>>> his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> 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 ...
>>
>
>
> I found this paper by Zeh from 1970:
>
> On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory", 1970, Foundations
> of Physics, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 69–76
>
> In particular, he describes the essential idea of many minds and
> macroscopic superposition on page 74:
> http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.pngbut
>  he also references Everett, so it isn't entirely clear to me if he is
> introducing anything new.
>
>
>
> From what I remember, Zeh is, in that paper,  much closer to  Everett than
> to the Albert-Loewer "many mind" theory. Note that the "many-mind" theory
> is very specific, and assumes a unique universe.
>

But didn't they assume reality of the superposition?  If the superposition
is real how can their only be one unique "universe"?



> Observers' mind get mutiplied with probabilities which have to be
> postulated again, so it lost completely the appeal we can have for Everett.
> It transform "other people" into zombies, also.
>

Is this a necessary consequence of many-minds or only  inAlbert and
Loewer's formulation of it?

Jason


> Albert-Loewer "many-minds" theory seems to me less sensical than Bohm or
> even Copenhagen. It unites all the defects of all QM-interpretations in one
> theory, imo,  and this without mentioning that it needs non-comp.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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