> On 14 Oct 2019, at 20:06, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:20:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/6/2019 3:03 AM, smitra wrote: >>>> >>>> And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction >>>> between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference will >>> go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can then have >>> an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and each outcome >>> will have a certain probability that corresponds to the relative frequency >>> at which different outcomes will occur in a large time period. >> >> What does "effective splitting in single world collapse" mean? Sounds like >> classical probability due to ignorance...except that's NOT splitting. > > > It is differentiating. > > Imagine the WM-duplication, or better here, a guy who is duplicated in two > virtual rooms, numerically identical, except for a close virtual envelop with > a paper containing 1 (written on a paper) in room 1 and 2 in room 2. > > If the person there does not open the envelop, we can fuse them again, and > nothing special happened. It one consciousness flux, like if no duplication > occurred. > But if the guy open the envelop and read what is on the paper, then the > consciousness flux differentiates. > > For the measure on the histories, the rule is graphically sum up by the > diagram: > > Y = II > > The differentiation in the future separate the past, and it allows the > elimination of the splitting. The real diagram are provided by the Kripke > semantic, or other semantic for the modal logic of self-reference (and its > intensional variants), where we should get something like the Feynman > diagrams for the histories and sub-histories. > > Like you say: it is classical probabilities, from a relative first person > perspective, localised in a mathematically sophisticated structure. The > many-worlds of the universal wave seems to confirm the many-computations of > elementary arithmetic. This one has the Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology” capable > of distinguishing quanta (knowable, observable and sharable) from qualia > (knowable, observable, but not sharable). > > Bruno > > > > Many Words is Gödel-Löb-Solovay “theology. > > Of course!
If this is not sarcastic: no. That is not obvious. But it is explained in all details in my papers, but you might need to study some good book in logic (like Mendelson’s one already referred to). Bruno > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bf3d29c-273f-46f6-88eb-1e82d1d0e82c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bf3d29c-273f-46f6-88eb-1e82d1d0e82c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/5F7AE68A-4669-4918-BBC7-8720BCE6DBB9%40ulb.ac.be.
