> On 14 Aug 2018, at 03:31, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in > > one and the same branch" prior to measurement. But normal QM without > > collapse would say Alice and Bob are branching all the time, even > > before they measure their entangled pair. So isn't it necessary to > > take this into consideration (that this is implicitly the original > > scenario): > > There are many branchings of the wf describing Alice, almost all of them > are irrelevant to who Alice is. They are below the quasi-classical > level at which "Alice" exists; below the level at which her brain > decides at what angle to measure the particle. All those Alices are one > person. So they are treated as one classical being. That they split > into two (up or down) classically distinct beings, is unrelated to the > fact there are many microscopically different Alices. > > I agree. > > I believe this is exactly why Bruno raised the issue of whether Bruce was > operating under the "Mind-brain identity" theory of mind, vs. the > "computational/mechanist" theory of mind. > > The former would attribute 1 mind per each physical incarnation, while the > latter would say there is a 1-to-many relationship between a mind and its > physical instantiations. > > Bruce thinks it is irrelevant, but I think your point above shows one needs > to make explicit the theory of mind one is operating within.
I agree. > > > It is not clear to me how Bruno thinks of these many quasi-classical, > Alices. He seems to just dismiss their differences as below replacement > level the Doctor promises. That seems like assuming that they are > really classical entities, just similar computational threads in the UD. > > > Computation is a classical notion. Yes, in the sense of logic. It is “boolean”. Not in the sense of Newton, although they are relations (already exploited by Aristotle). Relativity and quantum mechanics are still classical theory in the logician sense, as Bohr remarked once. > I believe Bruno would say there is a 1-to-many relationship between a mind > and its implementations, so long as those implementations differ functionally > only below the level of detail necessary to describe the computation > associated with that mind (i.e. they differ only below that "substitution > level”). Exactly. With Mechanism, the reason why an electron seem to pass through two holes at once is due to the fact that my consciousness is independent of which path the particle is taking. The reason why that interfere is provided by the logic of self-reference which is a quantum logic for the “material mode” of self-reference that I have often described here. Bruno > > Jason > > > -- > 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.
