Dear Koichiro, dear John and Colleagues,
I bump this older post, as it is related to my recent post to Lou.
On 27 Nov 2015, at 02:06, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
At 4:28 AM 11/27/2015, John C. wrote:
A paper by my former graduate advisor, Jeff Bub, who was a student
of David Bohm’s.
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/11/7374
The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-
Theoretic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Yes, Bub’s insistence on the absolute randomness would remain
invincible as far as third-person probabilities are taken for
granted from the outset in comprehending what messages would QM
convey to us. On the other hand, once one may happen to feel at ease
with the first-person probabilities (see, for instance, James
Hartle’s “Living in a superposition” http://arXiv.org/abs/
1511.01550 ), the first-person probability of the occurrence of such
an agent assuming the first-person status would come to approach
unity even within the framework of the decoherent-histories
interpretation of QM.
I think I agree (modulo some possible ambiguity perhaps).
If we take seriously that we might not be more than relative universal
machine ourself, this extends in the "decoherent-histories" internal
(made by the universal numbers) interpretation of Arithmetic.
I discovered the first person arithmetical probabilities before
knowing anything about quantum mechanics. It is still possible that
the arithmetical possibilities does not interfere like they should,
but that is shown to be testable.
Personally, I don't think that a third person indeterminacy makes
"interesting sense". Like Einstein, I tend to think that God does not
play dice, and that there is no spooky action at a distance (but that
too has not yet been derived completely from computationalism, to be
sure).
This is my second post of the week.
Best,
Bruno
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
