> On 7 Sep 2019, at 13:46, smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07-09-2019 13:04, Philip Thrift wrote: >> On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 4:09:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> _>> Sean Carroll is on a nationwide speaking tour now evangelizing >>>> Many Worlds. What is the predictive power of Many Worlds?_ >>>>> None, unless someone can figure out how to derive Born's rule >>>> from it...which I think is impossible. >>> Many Worlds predicts that the best any observer will be able to do >>> is make probabilistic predictions, and Gleason's theorem says that >>> in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the >>> Born rule), and not the cube or anything else, can yield a >>> probability without inconsistencies. >>> John K Clark >> MANY WORLDS, THE BORN RULE, AND SELF-LOCATING UNCERTAINTY >> Sean M. Carroll, Charles T. Sebens >> (Submitted on 30 May 2014 (v1), last revised 25 Mar 2015 (this >> version, v3)) >> We provide a derivation of the Born Rule in the context of the Everett >> (Many-Worlds) approach to quantum mechanics. Our argument is based on >> the idea of self-locating uncertainty: in the period between the wave >> function branching via decoherence and an observer registering the >> outcome of the measurement, that observer can know the state of the >> universe precisely without knowing which branch they are on. We show >> that there is a uniquely rational way to apportion credence in such >> cases, which leads directly to the Born Rule. Our analysis generalizes >> straightforwardly to cases of combined classical and quantum >> self-locating uncertainty, as in the cosmological multiverse. > > This argument (the mathematical part is based on Zurek's derivation) can be > made even stronger by invoking the fact that even in principle an observer > cannot locate herself precisely in one effectively classical World. > Everything you can in principle be aware of only fixes a finite number of > physical degrees of freedom of your brain, so you're always going to be in a > superposition of not just the entire observable universe, even your own brain > state is never going to (effectively) collapse into a definite state. > > So, if you're simulated by a classical computer, the macroscopic registers of > your classical brain will be in a superposition corresponding to slightly > different data processing being carried out. A more powerful conscious agent > implemented by a much larger computer can observe the exact state of all your > registers, but he can never communicate this to you as the computer rendering > you cannot store all that information. So, you will always be located in a > superposition of states where this information is different. And that more > powerful conscious agent will itself be in a superposition of states where > its registers are in different states. > > These superpositions are entangled superpositions with the environment that > specify that if the input information from the environment where slightly > different than that the output bran state would have to be correspondingly > different. So, such a superposition then defines the algorithm that is > running. The conscious agent is then aware of the processed data, but only to > some finite resolution, he's then in a superposition of everything that > happens below that resolution and that then Defines the algorithm that > renders the consciousness. > > If a conscious agent could be located in a precisely defined single World > then that leads to the problem that the state doesn't define the algorithm > that is actually running. In a purely classical picture counterfactuals > cannot be relevant, whatever the physics is makes you conscious all that > happens is that you pass from one state to another state at some arbitrary > moment that you have some conscious thought. So, any trivial device that > doesn't so any nontrivial computations that is set up such that it will > always pass through these states, such as a recording of these states, will > also be conscious. > > We can avoid this paradox by taking serious that at each moment we're > algorithms that are defined by the counterfactual data processing that fall > within the region of uncertainty defined by the finite precision of our > awareness.
And the case is made even stringer when you know that all computations (execution of algorithm made by universal machine/number) exist provably. Provably, unless one doubt that 2+2=4, of course. Bruno > > Saibal > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/139db655a073f38b63dc65ccf703bff1%40zonnet.nl. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/BFE1DFCF-8553-474C-957A-E33E42E332E1%40ulb.ac.be.
