On 22 Apr 2014, at 02:03, Pierz wrote:
Just came across this presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
It's a bit long, but I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts who
is knowledgeable on QM. I don't follow the maths, but I kind of got
the gist. What intrigued me was his interpretation of QM and I'm
wondering if anyone can throw any more light on it. He makes a lot
of jumps which are obviously clear in his mind but hard to follow.
He says that MWI is supportable by the maths, but that he prefers a
"zero universes" interpretation, according to which we are classical
simulations in a quantum computer. I'm not sure I follow this. I
mean, I can follow the idea of being a classical simulation in a
quantum computer, but I can't see how this is different from MWI,
except by the manoeuvre of declaring other universes to be unreal
because they can never practically interact with 'our' branch. I
guess what interested me was the possibility of a coherent
alternative to MWI (because frankly MWI scares the willies out of me),
Me too. But at some deeper level my open-mindedness on this is
"protected" by an even bigger fear: the fear to get it wrong.
but in spite of what he said, I couldn't see what it was...
Physicists are unclear on what they mean by "world". I agree with you:
to be a classical emulation in a quantum computer is basically
equivalent with the MWI, assuming computationalism and a level above
the quantum level.
Computationalism can be ontologically simpler, as all there is needed
is the number 0, and its successors, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and nothing
else. (the dreams will emerge from the additive-multiplicative
relations).
This is automatically a 0 worlds a priori. But sharable dreams can
cohere enough to make open the question if we are in a complete (in
some sense) physical reality (one universe), or one multiverse, or a
cluster of multiverses, etc. But this is only from inside, because
from "outside", all what exists are the piece of dreams which cohere
(enough or not).
Here "dream" means "computation from some point of view".
That is what is translated in arithmetic by "sigma_1" and provable by
a machine ("me" in 3p), in a consistent environment, that is "[]p &
<>t", with p an arithmetical sigma_1 sentence. (+ the "theaetetus
nuance: []p & <>t & p).
Is there a consolation for the MWI fears?
Well "MWI" is not the explanation, it is the whole "theology" which is
the explanation, and things are complex there, especially after 1500
years of "no mind change" on this. You might really read Plato,
neoplatonists, the mystics, and study the comparison with some eastern
school, ... and with actual machine's self-reference.
Bruno
Life, what is it, but a dream. (Lewis Carroll)
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
