> On 6 Aug 2018, at 21:11, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8/6/2018 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Aug 2018, at 09:23, [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 5:50:56 PM UTC, [email protected] >>> <http://gmail.com/> 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. I >>> forget; what is mechanism? AG >>> >>> There is no probability waves. >>> >>> IIUC, the wf has the mathematical form of a wave, of which the amplitude is >>> part of. AG >> >> The point is that it behave also like a wave. Even if I send only one >> particle, the position of the screen is determine by a wave which take into >> account all physical available path. >> >> You have proposed an instrumentalist interpretation, and that is OK if you >> goal is to build microscopic transistor or atomic bombs. Here we try to make >> sense of a theory. The choice is between a non-local guiding potential, the >> relative states or a (magical) collapse, also non local. > > You want to make sense of a theory that is defined by complex valued fields > in a Hilbert space built on spacetime. You begin by assuming mechanism,
Not in this thread. I am just discussing the MW theory. My point is only that QM + collapse entails physical FTL. If you prefer: QM+collapse is not covariant. QM-without-collapse entails *apparent FTL* but no real FTL, and is a covariant theory. > which implicitly replaces everything physical, including the spacetime, with > conscious thoughts which are realized as theorems in arithmetic (or > equivalent computation). You have not shown how this entails conscious > thoughts about a quasi-classical world, i.e. one in which there appears a > shared reality. So wouldn't it be simpler to just adopt the interpretation of > QBism. It seems compatible with the idea of a computational substrate, but > it doesn't need to assume one. That fact tells me the computational > substrate is an independent assumption that does not follow from QM. QM without collapse use Mechanism, and Mechanism implies that only numbers (or only combinators, …) exist. We have to explain the illusion of matter from only addition and multiplication of natural numbers (or from only K and S and the two axioms I have given). Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
