On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>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 [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/ > > > > -- > 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.
