On 01 Dec 2017, at 22:58, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 4:55:46 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Nov 2017, at 22:55, [email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 9:14:48 PM UTC,
[email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 8:44:18 PM UTC,
[email protected] wrote:
On Wednesday, November 29, 2017 at 5:29:01 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:51 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> If, as you claim, any fundamental parameters can exist,
That is NOT what I claimed. I claimed any
fundamental parameter that can exist does exist, I did
NOT claim any fundamental parameter can exist. There is a
HUGE difference!
That's much more Tegmarkian than MWI. In the latter, the claim is
that except for the measurement realized, identical universes come
into being where the values not measured in this world, are
realized, that is, measured. So these other universes, if they
exist, have the same fundamental constants as our universe. AG
Even if all parameters consistent with logic CAN occur, it doesn't
necessarily mean they DO. I illustrated this possibility, but
haven't proved it (and AFAIK, no one has), with my thought
experiment using the real line. And in the case of the MWI, the
parameters of those other worlds must be IDENTICAL to this world,
since the claim of MWI is that those universes are identical except
for the values measured. Now let's go back to Joe the Plumber.
Suppose in this world he leaves the casino after one pull of the
slot machine, having now created 10 million other universes.
Presumably some of those other Joe's continue playing, some not,
resulting in tens of millions of new universes, with identical
Joe's, some continuing to play, and some not. And on and on it goes.
Does this really make sense to you? Joe and slot machines is a
parable. Purists can think of Joe in a lab, shooting an electron at
a double slit. AG
It seems to me it makes much sense that Bohm or Copenhagen. It is
just the SWE, viewed by machine which evolves doing the coding in
some position base, probably for some reason.
It is shocking perhaps. But then for a Platonist, if the ultimate
reality is not shocking, it is a symptom you have not yet seen it.
It is normal, our brain are not build to study that ultimate
reality, and I think that somehow, it is even build for hidden some
parts of the ultimate reality.
Not shocking; rather it shows poor judgment; hubris to think humans
can create metastasizing universes by doing simple quantum
experiments.
On the contrary, with the Everett theory, any interaction can be seen
as a measurement, and a measurement create nothing, it makes only
consciousness differentiating. It is the collapse which is more like
hubris, with looking at something acting non locally everywhere, and
consciousness changing the course of matter.
It creates and leaves a ton of unanswered questions under the rug
and ignored, which never seems to faze its enthusiasts. AG
I am not sure what you mean.
The only (huge) problem which remains, in Everett, is in justifying
the appearance of the wave from all computations, and not just the
quantum one, and this from a computationalist theory of mind. But
Everett was not working on the mind-body problem, only physics, and by
the abandon of the collapse, he was paving a way to computationalism
and its solution to the riddle of consciousness and apparent matter.
With the collapse theory, the aristotelian strategy to hide the mind-
body problem is re-instantiated.
Bruno
With Mechanism, it becomes conceptually very simple. You need only
the numbers and addition or multiplication (or any first order
theory Turing equivalent to it). That is, you need only a universal
machine, in the mathematical sense of Church, Post, Turing,
Kleene, ... Then the existence of all pieces of dreams is given by
very elementary theory, and it involves the dreamers sometimes
sharing very long dreams, and some other consciousness state. In
fact this gives a theology in the greek sense of the terms, meaning
that it contains physics, making Mechanism testable. The "many-
apparent worlds" is a confirmation of the infinitely many dreams
below our substitution levels, and the math of self-reference
provides three quantum logics for the notion of "observable" by a
mean Universal Turing machine".
Bruno
> then there would be universes where matter could NOT exist,
and the reproducing of the measuring scenario would be IMPOSSIBLE!
And that is why the MWI says everything that can happen does
happen, not everything that can't happen does happen.
> You need help, badly, urgently.
Hmm, after communicating with you for a while I have reached
the following conclusion: you sir are an ass.
John K Clark
You shouldn't have deleted what you actually wrote. Then we could
judge what your words conveyed. I don't time now to dredge it up. In
any event, the parable about the slot machine says it all. AG
...
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
