On 07 Jun 2014, at 13:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:
No, what I think is that comp cannot be falsified because it
predicts a MWI universe and MWI cannot be falsified experimentally.
Bruno and others seem to think that the double slit experiment is
evidence for comp. But I disagree. All the detectors in the detector
screen are set to observe the same single world so that when a
single particle is transmitted, only one particle is detected. If
the double slit were evidence for comp, many particles would be
detected for one being transmitted. The consensus in the physics
community is that MWI cannot be falsified or verified, otherwise it
would not be considered to be an interpretation of quantum theory.
Regarding reality coming from the collection of first person
perspectives when there were no persons, my thinking is that comp
also predicts a cosmic consciousness, essentially a god of the gap,
that is "the really real part of reality". What persons provide is a
future that cannot be computed because of their free will. If so,
all the possible futures must continually be recalculated,
presumably by the cosmic consciousness.
But I also think this cannot happen in a MWI block universe that is
deterministic because there is no need for consciousness or free
will, or even a cosmic consciousness in a deterministic universe
IMO. As a result those who believe in MWI also tend to believe that
our consciousness and free will is an illusion. R
I disagree, but I appreciate your effort to make yourself clear. It
makes easier to answer, and makes higher the probability to find what
we might disagree more deeply.
Let me begin by your last paragraph. I agree that the block universe
is deterministic. But for me, that is a chance for free-will. I don't
believe in theories or explanations of free-will in term of non
determinism. I don't see how an absolute indeterminacy would implies
free-will. I see free-will more as a self-indeterminacy (but different
from the FPI) arising from an ability to make decisions in a frame of
partial ignorance/knowledge about ourselves. God can know that I am
about deciding to take another cup of coffee, but that will not
prevent me to do that coffee with my "free-will". Of course I have not
really chosen my taste for coffee, nor my taste for searching truth.
In that sense, even God has no free-will. But that sense is close to
being contradictory or non sensical.
The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially chose
the type of future we want to belong. We can influence the statistics
of the normal realities. This makes the end of the second paragraph
correct with respect to comp: we cannot predict the futures notably
due to the presence of persons, which can refute the predictions, or
even just makes them wrong by sheer intrinsic complexity of the
machines with introspective power.
Does comp predicts a cosmic consciousness? Probably so, but it is not
a prediction. It is more an attitude, like not taking a universal
machine for a zombie. It is not so much a prediction, than a
consequence of the fact that we "predict" our neighbors are conscious,
and with comp, even so when they got an artificial brain.
Sometimes ago, I would have be mute on the UM consciousness, and talk
only on the Löbian one, but salvia changed my mind on this, and now I
do agree with you that comp go in the direction of a "cosmic
consciousness", but it might be only the consciousness of the
universal (virgin) machine. By virgin I mean "non programmed by a
particular non universal program".
Does comp predicts the MWI?
It depends how you interpret "MWI". If you see the W like complete
newtonian-like sort of realities, then comp does not predicts it, as
there are only 0, 1, 2, 3, and nothing else at the ontological level.
But from the + and * relational structures, all subjective appearances
exists in arithmetic, seen from inside, and comp predicts the
appearance of interfering computations below our substitution level.
So, comp implies something similar to QM, but don't ask for a naive
conception of the worlds, which typically are not, and perhaps does
not, admit clear definition.
The many dreams is just literal arithmetic, with mechanism assumed in
the background, like MWI is just QM superpositions without an explicit
mechanism/magic to make disappear all terms (but one) of the universal
wave.
Does the double slits experiments confirm the MWI. No, if you reify
the physical worlds, as indeed this is not testable. yes, in the sense
that we can put bits in superposition states and effectuate massively
parallel computations, and get some results that it would be
impossible to get if those computations did not take place in some
reality. You detect just one particle, in the two slits, but you
detect it at a place it could not have been if the multiple path
stories where not realized.
Others things might be clarified in the math thread, perhaps.
Bruno
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Kim Jones <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7 Jun 2014, at 2:55 pm, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote:
Kim says: Every person carries a unique perspective, their 1p
perception of "reality". This is the main reason I go with comp;
it's a vaccine as Bruno says, agsinst the elimination of the
person. Indeed, if comp is true, persons are the only things that
are the really real part of reality.
Richard responds: That is one of the main reasons I do not go with
comp since the universe seemingly got along without persons for
such a long time. If I remember correctly when I questioned Bruno,
he responded that the universe can do without persons but is not so
robust (my word). I do not recall exactly how Bruno expressed it.
OK, fair enough but you seem to be suggesting that this train of
logic falsifies comp? How? In addition, how can we know that
"persons" (ie observers) were somehow not present at the birth of
the universe? Numbers were, apparently.
k
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Kim Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7 Jun 2014, at 12:58 pm, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6 June 2014 23:46, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
Why do you feel I am being sarcastic? I thought what you wrote was
amazing so I said so. Is it actually possible to deliver someone
an honest compliment around here or is having a siege mentality
mandatory?
I may have a bit of a siege mentality. As someone without any
suitable academic qualifications to discuss physics, I always feel
that I am probably about to shoot myself in the foot every time I
open my mouth.
(I also have a morbid fear of coming out with mixed metaphors... :-)
Think nothing of it, Ma'am. The one who truly has the siege
mentality is currently cooling his heels after attacking the nicest
guy on the planet, Bruno, for having a different notion of
falsification to him. This sort of thing furthermore illustrates
what I meant when I said there can be as many sides to a story as
there are heads in the room to advance a rational perspective or
point of view.
Sorry to mix up the threads momentarily, but why MUST there be only
one definition of falsification? That to me is as ridiculous as
saying there is only one side to a building. It simply depends on
which side of the building you are standing in front of as to what
you report. To think otherwise is like saying with confidence that
all buldings are like those flats they use in hollywood to simulate
a wild western town - a facade only and nothing behind that one
face. What properly trained thinkers always do is seek the common
ground in the presentation of their ideas. This involves the
complete suspension of judgement; at least till all the pieces of
the jigsaw are on the table. Every person carries a unique
perspective, their 1p perception of "reality". This is the main
reason I go with comp; it's a vaccine as Bruno says, agsinst the
elimination of the person. Indeed, if comp is true, persons are the
only things that are the really real part of reality. Let's have
more respect for persons and their clearly diverging points of
view. But, in order to have the same point of view we would all
have to be standing in the exact same spot. Now that's my
definition of impossible.
K
--
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.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
--
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.
