Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun >> "you"? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world >> with only one version of you. What about th

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Can you clarify where you do and don't have a problem with the pronoun > "you"? Presumably there is no problem for you if there is a unique world > with only one version of you. What about the MWI > With Everett and with everyday life there is n

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sunday, March 1, 2015, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: > >> >> 2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett >>> Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and >>> that's just nuts. The sense of self d

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> 2) Like Everett Bruno is interested in predictions but unlike Everett >> Bruno thinks that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and >> that's just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future. You >> remember bei

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > See GRW theory, > This is at least a mathematical account of collapse and doesn't treat observers specially. However, there's nothing in the equations or postulates of QM to suggest it is true, and it becomes redundant (via Occam) given that t

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/28/2015 11:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/26/2015 11:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Implicit in Everett's relative state formulation was an implicit >> assumption of a mechani

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/28/2015 11:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 11:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Implicit in Everett's relative state formulation was an implicit assumption of a mechanist theory of mind. In CI th

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:33, Samiya Illias wrote: On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use "One" for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

Samiya, I am always cautious not to hurt a fellow lister's feelings. Bruno is a bit mixed up with religion (uses 'theology', capital G in God, etc. etc.) so I do not question his 'faith' beyond what he disclosed already (I hope). I was always polite with your preconditions as well. Now that you que

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 28 Feb 2015, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2015 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived fr

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 28 Feb 2015, at 00:06, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:50:21PM -0500, John Clark wrote: Yes, people very often, usually in fact, don't know with certainty what the future will bring. Bruno apparently believes he's the first to notice that, well he is the first to giv

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 28 Feb 2015, at 16:38, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish wrote: > To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from the fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are, ^^^ John Clark doesn't understand the question. Which person who is?

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

>> >> The best text on non-relativistic QM is by Asher Peres and it's available >> *free* online. >> >> >> http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory%20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf >> > > > This is his treatment of MW: *Everett’s interpretation and other bizarre theories* Another

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:00 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 11:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Implicit in Everett's relative state formulation was an implicit > assumption of a mechanist theory of mind. In CI there seems to be the > assumption of a non-material, non-physical mind, which can c

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 27 Feb 2015, at 19:50, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote: >> I don't know about all the peepee stuff but I do know that If Everett is right then all experiences exist, and if Everett is right nothing is random because the Schrodinger wave equation is not ra

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 9:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > But notice that all these "worlds" need to already exist. >> > > Why? Can one really decided between subjective differentiation vs. > objective splitting? > > > Can one really decide between random

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/27/2015 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability > interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the > need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish wrote: > >> > > To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from the >> fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are, > > ^^^ > > John Clark doesn't understand the question.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

> On 28-Feb-2015, at 11:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> Why don't you just call it One with a capital O > > > Because I use "One" for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general > notion, used by most philosophers and compar

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 27 Feb 2015, at 12:56, Samiya Illias wrote: Why don't you just call it One with a capital O Because I use "One" for Plotinus first Hypostase. I use God, for the general notion, used by most philosophers and comparative theologians. Bruno Samiya On 27-Feb-2015, at 4:23 pm, Bruno

Re: FPI (was: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015Russell Standish wrote: > > To be fair to Bruno, that is not what he claims. The FPI comes from the > fundamental uncertainty in know which person you are, ^^^ John Clark doesn't understand the question. Which person who is? > > it seems Everett did much the same thing

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 PGC wrote: > > as diehard atheist in every way, > That's me. > > finding any possible transcendental concept of others laughable, > I don't find all transcendental concepts laughable, some are based on logic and are reasonable or at least semi-reasonable scientific specu