On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:50:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 5 Aug 2018, at 19:50, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 4:43:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Aug 2018, at 23:32, [email protected] wrote: >> >> AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude >> the wave function has only epistemic content. >> >> >> >> Then you need to explain how that epistemic content interfere in nature. >> Your idea might make sense, and indeed if we believe in a collapse (as you >> have to do if you believe in QM and that the superposition does not apply >> to us) the idea that consciousness collapse the wave is perhaps the less >> ridiculous idea. That idea has indeed be defended by von Neumann, Wigner, >> and some others. But has been shown to lead to many difficulties when taken >> seriously by Abner Shimony, as well guessed by Wigner itself. Obviously >> that idea would be inconsistent with Mechanism. >> > > *Easy to show that consciousness doesn't collapse the wf. Just do repeated > trials and don't look at the screen until the experiment is finished.* > > > The idea that consciousness collapses the wave is that the wave is > described by a sum of two waves which are the one diffracted by the two > slits. The *final* probability is the square of the amplitude on that > screen, and the absence of particles ever on some part of the screen is due > to the destructive interference of the wave. We have a superposition, and > it works because I have not been conscious of which path the particle has > chosen. It is the unconsciousness of which hole took the electron which > interferes in this picture, and consciousness which select the eigenstate > in its favourite base. >
*Consciousness used to be the explanation for collapse. When it doesn't work, try unconsciousness. AG* > > The idea is that if I look at u + d, QM describes that as O(u+d) = O u + O > d. The collapse is the inference that [1/sqrt(2)Ou + 1/sqrt(2)Od] collapses > into either Ou or Od with a probability (1/sqrt(2)^2. Everett is the theory > that there is no collapse, and it explains why the observer O will still > describes in its diary something like a collapse, using Mechanism > (identifying a person with its personal memory sequences of experiences, > like looking at a particle state).. > > I think more and more that the appellation “Relativise state theory” is > better that many-worlds, because the notion of worlds is more tricky to > defined than the word “state”. > > With mechanism we know at the start that the notion of world does not make > sense, there are only relative sharable dreams. > > > * I forget; what is mechanism? AG * > > > > It is the hypothesis/theory/assumption that it exists a level of > description of your brain, or body (including any finite part of the > environment if you insist), such that a digital emulation executed by some > physical computer, at that level, would support your consciousness and > subjective life and character, etc. To simplify the reasoning I use often > the brain metabolical level, allowing you to survive with a digital brain. > My contribution is that entails you do survive also in the arithmetical > reality, and that we have to explain the origin of the wave trough a > Pythagorean theology, and the work of Gödel, Löb and Solovay provides > exactly that, and the tests (the comparison between the theological physics > of the universal Turing machine with the observation fits. The wave itself > is a phenomenological first person plural product on the sum of all > universal machine computations/dreams. > > Let me describe you the possible progress in the field, > > I. Copenhagen: the assumptions are > > 1) the sigma_1 true propositions (a little part of arithmetic) > 2) The SWE > 3) a dualist unintelligible theory of mind > > II. Everett: the assumptions are > > 1) the sigma_1 true propositions > 2) The SWE > 3) Mechanism > > III) … and you can see this as a problem to solve, but the propositional > parts can be shown offered on a plate by the (Löbian) Universal Machine: > > 1) the sigma_1 true propositions > 2) Mechanism > > Both the wave and the collapse should be (and is already up to further > verifications) explained the origin of the universal wave. Eventually it is > all in the head of all universal machine/machinery. > > Do you know a programming language? If yes, an example of a universal > machinery is provided by the enumeration of all programs in that > programming language. Another example: the enumeration of all Turing > machines. Another example: the enumeration of all combinators K S KK KS SK > SS KKK K(KK) …, or the numbers 0 S0 SS0 SSS0 SSSS0 …(S = successor here, > nothing to do with the Starling S, I mean the combinator S). > > Bruno > > > >> There is no probability waves. There is only an amplitude of probability >> wave, and the weirdness is that we have strong indirect evidence that the >> amplitude of that wave is as physically real as the particles that we can >> observe, because the particle location is determined by that wave having >> interfered like wave usually do. In particular, even if send one by one, >> the particles will never been found where the wave interfere destructively, >> and the pattern on the screen will reflect the number of holes, and their >> disposition. >> >> It is OK to say that probability comes from ignorance, and that the wave >> describe that ignorance, the extraordinary thing is then that this >> ignorance interfere independently of you. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I have embraced the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of the wave >> function. >> >> >> >> That can be wise. Nobody can enforce the search of the truth. It is >> frustrating because we can’t be sure if we progress toward it or the >> contrary, and it is shocking because truth always beat fictions. >> >> >> >> I also see a connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump >> sycophants; they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of >> thinking copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG >> >> >> That remark deserves your point and diminish your credibility. It also >> suggests that you are a “True Believer” in something. >> >> Assuming Mechanism in cognitive science, you don’t need quantum mechanics >> to understand that there are infinitely many relative computational states >> corresponding to you here and now emulated by infinitely many universal >> machines. Even without mechanism this is a theorem of arithmetic using only >> Church thesis. With mechanism, we have to derive the “guessable wave" from >> a statistics on those computations, and so we can test Mechanism if it >> leads to more, or less extravaganza than Nature. It fits up to now. So with >> Mechanism, we get the *appearance* of many interfering “worlds”, and this >> without any worlds, from just the natural numbers and the laws of addition >> and multiplication. I will show that with the combinators as it is much >> shorter (but still long) than showing this with the numbers. This is known >> by logicians since the 1930s (I mean that a universal Turing machine is an >> arithmetical object). Computationalism, or Indexical Digital Mechanism >> imposes a Many-Dreams internal interpretation of Arithmetic (or combinator >> theory, or game-of-life theory, … we have to assume only one universal >> machinery). >> >> 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 https://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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
