On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM + collapse is inconsistent (with a great variety of principle, like
computationalism, God does not play dice, no spooky actions, etc.).
Principles of Platonist faith.
You don't need any faith to disbelieve in the opportunity to invoke magical thing in the
explanation.
It is up to those who make extraordinary claims to provide the evidences.
Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. That some things may happen at
random isn't.
It is a theorem of comp, also. The many worlds, in his relative state formulation, is
already a consequence of computationalism. By church thesis, *all* computations are
emulated in all possible ways in elementary arithmetic, with a typical
machine-independent redundancy: it makes the notion of "world" formulable,
Does it? What's the definition of a world in comp?
It is a model of "my beliefs", assuming I am consistent (so that such a model
exist).
That would comport with quantum bayesianism.
You can handle the world by notion like maximal consistent sets of formula, which in
this case can have oracle like answering W or M when opening a door after a
self-duplication. A world can satisfy a belief like "I belief in PA and I am currently
located at Washington".
But those are just words. Does Washington have to exist in a world? Or just propositions
containing "Washington". Without some referents every two propositions not of the form "X
and not-X" will be consistent. "I'm in Washington." and "I'm in Moscow." are consistent
unless we have a theory of existence in spacetime and some referents for "Washington" and
"Moscow".
Brent
Can you show that there are distinction denumerable worlds?
Word are internal psychological, epistemological or theological notion, and the geometry
on the worlds depend on the person's point of view.
The "probability measure" is not dependent of our ability to distinguish worlds, but on
their ability to differentiate in principle, a bit like decoherence in Everett-QM. Of
course, we have only the shadow of coherence, so we can't extract decoherence today: a
lot of problems must be solved before. The point is: we have the math to do so, and so
to test classical computationalism.
Bruno
--
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.
