On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2019, at 01:50, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:55 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 01:30, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >> On 8 Sep 2019, at 13:59, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If the only relevance you can find for many worlds is quantum >> immortality, then many worlds is indeed dead. Quantum immortality has been >> shown many times to be a complete nonsense. >> >> >> Really. I did not known that. Could you give the references. >> >> Follow the Wikipedia entry on quantum suicide. >> >> That is not what I mean by a reference. >> > > I later gave a reference to the paper by Mallah -- whom you know of, > apparently. The paper is available at > > https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0187 > > > > > Yes, the oldest participant in this list have know Jacques Mallah, who > participated a lot in this list. > > Mallah is wrong here: > > << > Max Tegmark publicized the QS idea, but in some ways he is more of a > moderate on the issue than most of its believers are. If he were to follow > in the footsteps of Don Page and alter his views, recanting belief in QS, > it would be a great help in exposing the belief as a fallacy, and I hold > out hope that it is possible that he will do so. > > In his paper [Tegmark 1] QS is explained as follows: > > “Since there is exactly one observer having perceptions both before and > after the trigger event, and since it occurred too fast to notice, the MWI > prediction is that” (the experimenter) “will hear “click” with 100% > certainty.” > > That is a rather odd statement because he is certainly aware that in the > MWI there is no sense in which it can be rightfully said that “there is > exactly one observer” either before > > [image: page13image25488] > or after the experiment. The ket notation may be unhelpful here; indeed, > if the tensor product of kets on the left hand side were expanded instead > of factoring out the observer, there would appear to have been “two > observers” initially. > >> > I don't get Mallah's point here, either. I will have to look more clearly at his argument against QS. I don't think that case is a clear-cut as for QI. The fact that I am not the oldest person around is clear evidence against QI. Bruce Two different brains doing the same computation gives only one subjective > first person. > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQQZ9Ai1GL6-q0wGJjLMU49XG-Oj0JSpqD%3DS-VBU4PjFw%40mail.gmail.com.
