On 25/06/2016 1:16 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jun 2016, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If we restrict quantum mechanics only to the late phases of the
universe,
I do not assume a universe.
We don't have to assume it -- we observe it, and we experience it
directly, so it is as real as our conscious state -- consciousness
supervenes on the physical brain, after all.
that understanding of other worlds might be equivalent to the
Everettian many worlds interpretation. But if the Big Bang is itself
seen as a quantum event, then all possible Big Bangs are necessarily
in superposition,
Yes, it is part of the multiverse, and partially part of the UD, but
the real things is seen only through the FPI limit on all computations.
I see, so you do believe in a collapse model, after all. You collapse
the unobserved part of the multiverse to unreality, to nothing. How do
you ensure that I am in the same world as you are?
and most of these alternative worlds will have different physics from
that of the world we inhabit.
If it makes sense to say that we inhabit in some physical world. But
that is what remains to be proven by the computationalist. At some
point it can be up to you to explain what you mean by "world". That
term is not obvious, assuming computationalism, and no more obvious
empirically after QM.
I have explained what I mean by "world" several times. I mean a physical
entity, describable by physical laws, and closed to interaction with
other such entities. These are the "worlds" that arise from Everettian
QM, and the other bubble universes in eternal inflation.
So if the only physics you can derive is unique, your account of FPI
is not completely equivalent to Everettian quantum mechanics.
Indeed. That is why we should deepened the testing. Everett assumes a
universal wave. I assume only elementary arithmetic (and TC +
yes-doctor at the intuive meta-level), so we get a bigger and more
complex measure problem, and that is why it is nice than when we just
listen to what the machines already say about this, we get (a) quantum
logic(s) at the place where we need an equivalent of Gleason theorem.
I think the problem you face is proving that the computations
characteristic of worlds with arbitrarily different constants and laws
do not also pass through our consciousness, leading to an incoherent
mess. Statistics over computations is not a clean way to separate things
out. Any probability other than one will lead to white rabbits.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
