Brent, My position is that the universe only exists through a conscious observer. Conscious observers are more frequent in computations that generate a stable environment rather than in isolated, short-lived computations that just happen to produce a coherent perception. Without a conscious observer, there is nothing—reality is an emergent property of observation.
I don’t claim to have a fully developed approach, otherwise, I would have published it. But I think something along the lines of the UDA, combined with constraints like the speed prior or compression-based measures, is likely the right direction. The structure of reality might not be about quantum mechanics alone but about how computational processes sustain conscious experiences within it. Quentin Le dim. 23 févr. 2025, 04:34, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On 2/22/2025 4:49 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le dim. 23 févr. 2025, 01:39, Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> >> >> On 2/22/2025 3:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> Bruce, >> >> Your argument assumes that because the Born rule is not yet fully derived >> from unitary evolution, MWI must be incorrect. >> >> No, but it's only correct if you add the Born rule to it. But that sort >> of makes MWI, "Just the Schroedinger equation" wrong. If it can't explain >> the Born rule then postulating that every result happens just introduces an >> extra complication. With the Born rule we can just say one result obtains, >> as predicted by the Born probability. >> >> Brent >> > > Brent, > > Saying MWI is "only correct if you add the Born rule" is just another way > of saying that quantum mechanics, in any interpretation, must account for > why we observe Born-rule probabilities. That is not unique to MWI—every > interpretation either assumes or derives it. > > That's what I said. But you seem to think that the addition of the Born > rule is unnecessary. You think it can be derived. > > > If you take the Born rule as a fundamental postulate, then yes, you can > just say "one result obtains" without further justification. But that’s an > assumption, not an explanation. > > And what would the explanation be. What is the derivation of the Born > rule without assuming it or something equivalent? > > The challenge is understanding why quantum probabilities follow this > specific rule rather than any other distribution. > > I don't know why *understanding* it is a challenge. It's empirically > verified. People understood that the sky is blue long before the atomic > theory of matter. > > MWI does not introduce an extra complication—it raises the question of > whether the Born rule follows from unitary evolution rather than being an > additional postulate. > > And the answer is "No." > > > If the Born rule cannot be derived from unitary evolution, that would be a > major issue for MWI. > > Exactly so. I makes MWI otiose. > > But that is not the same as saying it has been proven impossible. Simply > assuming one result obtains because the Born rule says so does not address > the deeper question of why it holds in the first place. > > It's impossible because as Bruce has pointed out MWI has no mechanism for > producing uneven probabilities between two possibilities. > > > That said, I personally think the real answer to these questions will not > be found in MWI or any specific quantum interpretation, but in a > computational theory of consciousness. > > Then you're welcome to publish such an answer. But remember that the > probabilities of quantum experiments are recorded in instruments that are > far to simple to be conscious. > > Brent > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7917865d-4c8d-4b54-bff2-beaab7f44a76%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7917865d-4c8d-4b54-bff2-beaab7f44a76%40gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kApWn3vd%3D57vGjjQbWRuirTOxj0CEPM3Xn2Nbnnbb%2B6rrg%40mail.gmail.com.
