Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
In particular one has to solve the basis problem
I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it. The
relative subjective state does not depend on the base.
That is precisely the problem. There are an infinite number of
possible bases for any Hilbert space and the Everett relative state
formulation does not distinguish between them -- but experience does.
Why?
Because when we do an experience, in a lab, or with our eyes, we
*choose* a base. (in the case of our eyes, of course, nature made the
choice of the base for us, through our history).
It is not different than "there are many planet, why are we on Earth".
That is the problem which is solved by the notion of indexical, and that
computationalism generalizes.
Anthropic arguments simply do not cut it in this case. What you say here
is essentially Bohr's original idea that quantum phenonema only make
sense in relationa to classical measuring devices.
But the global phenomenon lead to the same subjective experience,
whatever the base is chosen.
The global birds eye view does not change with basis, sure, but the
subjective experience is entirely determined by the basis. And the
theory does not specify a basis so it does not account for our experience.
Bruce
--
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.
