Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. > It's wrong, that imply you can nerver have been young. > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQQZ9Ai1GL6-q0wGJjLMU49XG-Oj0JSpqD%3DS-VBU4PjFw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kAoAsJQbOTV5t7EW4OmOeuiN%2BPo_Ohr5u6ApiwjybNUVrQ%40mail.gmail.com.
