On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/16/2013 12:40 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 17 December 2013 08:06, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> JKC makes a big point of the complete separation of quantum worlds,
>> although Everett didn't write about multiple worlds. Everett only
>> considered one world and wrote about the "relative state" of the observer
>> and the observed system. In some ways this is more fundamental because in
>> principle the "different worlds" of MWI can interfere with one another.
>> That they usually don't is a statistical result.
>> ("Many worlds" is just a nice (and roughly accurate) description, like
> Big Bang (better than Small Hiss) or Black Hole (better than Very Faintly
> Glowing Region of Infinite Gravity :)
> I think that's an unfair criticism of Copenhagen. Deterministic theories
>> just push the problem back in time. Ultimately there is either an uncaused
>> event or an infinite past. So there is not great intellectual virtue in
>> rejecting uncaused events. Quantum mechanics is an interesting
>> intermediate case. It has randomness, but randomness that is strictly
>> limited and limited in such a way that it produces the classical world at a
>> statistical level.
> The problem is pushed back onto whatever is considered fundamental. If
> there is an original event, it is only uncaused if it doesn't emerge
> naturally from (for example) the equations that are believed to describe
> the universe. One can say the same about an infinite past.
> Your own theory also introduces uncaused events, namely the computations
>> of a universal dovetailer. The whole idea of "everythingism" was inspired
>> by QM, but QM itself doesn't entail that everything happens. If you measure
>> a variable you only get eigenvalues of that variable - not every possible
>> value. If you measure it again you get the same eigenvalue again - not any
> I was given to believe that the computations of the UD aren't events,
> and that they simply exist within arithmetic as a logically necessary
> consequence of its existence. Did I get that wrong?
> I wouldn't say "wrong". It depends on whether you think "There exists a
> successor of 2." implies that 3 exists. Personally I think it is a
> confusion to say that a logical formula is satisfied by X is the same as
> saying X exists in the ontological sense.
> On the contrary, self-duplication explains the appearance of such
>> indeterminacy, without adding any further assumptions.
> Well, the existence of self-duplication, even via Everett, is a
> further assumption.
> Surely the existence of duplication (rather than self-duplication) arises
> from the equations? So one has self-duplication as a consequence, to the
> same extent that one has it within ones own personal past? Or have I
> misunderstood that too?
> (Or are you just talking about the sort of assumptions we have to make
> all the time anyway?)
> Occam favors it. Your belief in "3)" substitutes a very simple
>> explanation by a call to a form of built-in-non-explainable magic.
> No more magic than a UD.
> Why is the UD magic? (Is arithmetic magic?)
> It's hypothetically generating all possible worlds, but where is it? It's
> in Platonia. It's "the word made flesh." Sounds a lot more magical than
> "that atom decayed by potential tunneling just like the equations say."
In a sense, one can be more certain about arithmetical reality than the
physical reality. An evil demon could be responsible for our belief in
atoms, and stars, and photons, etc., but it is may be impossible for that
same demon to give us the experience of factoring 7 in to two integers
besides 1 and 7. So while Descartes could doubt physical reality, he could
not doubt the "unreality of arithmetically impossible experiences". In that
sense, arithmetic would in-part control possible experiences, and is harder
to doubt than the possibility that physics is constrains experiences.
Indeed, computationalism suggests this is true. An appropriately
programmed computer can generate any experience that can be possibly
experienced in any universe: our own "laws of physics" do not constrain our
possible experience whatsoever, so long as a Turing machine can be built
within the laws of some physical universe.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.