Re: One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution,

2010-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal
Thanks Brent. It looks interesting indeed. Glad to see the frequency  
operator coming back.
Tegmark is decidedly the closer physicist to the possible physics  
which has to be extracted from the computationalist hypothesis. It is  
sad that he is not ware of the delicacy of the mind-body problem and  
the need to abandon the identity thesis (mind-brain) once assuming  
mechanism.


Bruno


On 30 Aug 2010, at 04:25, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 8/29/2010 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


It is the nth attempt by Kent to refute Everett. Ah, but he may  
succeed, one day.

Thanks for the link. I will try to find some time to take a look.

But personally I think that many-worlds is already a consequence of  
mechanism, well before quantum mechanism. In that sense I think  
that quantum mechanism (in physics) confirms digital mechanism (in  
theology).


Bruno


I'd think you'd be very happy with this paper - which comports with  
an infinite everything.


Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of  
Quantum Mechanics


Authors: Anthony Aguirre, Max Tegmark, David Layzer
(Submitted on 5 Aug 2010)
Abstract: We study the quantum measurement problem in the context of  
an infinite, statistically uniform space, as could be generated by  
eternal inflation. It has recently been argued that when identical  
copies of a quantum measurement system exist, the standard  
projection operators and Born rule method for calculating  
probabilities must be supplemented by estimates of relative  
frequencies of observers. We argue that an infinite space actually  
renders the Born rule redundant, by physically realizing all  
outcomes of a quantum measurement in different regions, with  
relative frequencies given by the square of the wave function  
amplitudes. Our formal argument hinges on properties of what we term  
the quantum confusion operator, which projects onto the Hilbert  
subspace where the Born rule fails, and we comment on its relation  
to the oft-discussed quantum frequency operator. This analysis  
unifies the classical and quantum levels of parallel universes that  
have been discussed in the literature, and has implications for  
several issues in quantum measurement theory. It also shows how,  
even for a single measurement, probabilities may be interpreted as  
relative frequencies in unitary (Everettian) quantum mechanics. We  
also argue that after discarding a zero-norm part of the  
wavefunction, the remainder consists of a superposition of  
indistinguishable terms, so that arguably collapse of the  
wavefunction is irrelevant, and the many worlds of Everett's  
interpretation are unified into one. Finally, the analysis suggests  
a cosmological interpretation of quantum theory in which the wave  
function describes the actual spatial collection of identical  
quantum systems, and quantum uncertainty is attributable to the  
observer's inability to self-locate in this collection.

Comments:   17 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:	Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Cosmology and Extragalactic  
Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology  
(gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)

Cite as:arXiv:1008.1066v1 [quant-ph]

Brent



On 29 Aug 2010, at 00:59, ronaldheld wrote:


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.0624v2.pdf
Any comments on this large apper?
 Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution,

2010-08-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
It is the nth attempt by Kent to refute Everett. Ah, but he may  
succeed, one day.

Thanks for the link. I will try to find some time to take a look.

But personally I think that many-worlds is already a consequence of  
mechanism, well before quantum mechanism. In that sense I think that  
quantum mechanism (in physics) confirms digital mechanism (in theology).


Bruno


On 29 Aug 2010, at 00:59, ronaldheld wrote:


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.0624v2.pdf
Any comments on this large apper?
 Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution,

2010-08-29 Thread Brent Meeker

On 8/29/2010 11:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is the nth attempt by Kent to refute Everett. Ah, but he may 
succeed, one day.

Thanks for the link. I will try to find some time to take a look.

But personally I think that many-worlds is already a consequence of 
mechanism, well before quantum mechanism. In that sense I think that 
quantum mechanism (in physics) confirms digital mechanism (in theology).


Bruno


I'd think you'd be very happy with this paper - which comports with an 
infinite everything.



 Born in an Infinite Universe: a Cosmological Interpretation of
 Quantum Mechanics

Authors: Anthony Aguirre 
http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Aguirre_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Max 
Tegmark http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Tegmark_M/0/1/0/all/0/1, 
David Layzer http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Layzer_D/0/1/0/all/0/1

(Submitted on 5 Aug 2010)

   Abstract: We study the quantum measurement problem in the context of
   an infinite, statistically uniform space, as could be generated by
   eternal inflation. It has recently been argued that when identical
   copies of a quantum measurement system exist, the standard
   projection operators and Born rule method for calculating
   probabilities must be supplemented by estimates of relative
   frequencies of observers. We argue that an infinite space actually
   renders the Born rule redundant, by physically realizing all
   outcomes of a quantum measurement in different regions, with
   relative frequencies given by the square of the wave function
   amplitudes. Our formal argument hinges on properties of what we term
   the quantum confusion operator, which projects onto the Hilbert
   subspace where the Born rule fails, and we comment on its relation
   to the oft-discussed quantum frequency operator. This analysis
   unifies the classical and quantum levels of parallel universes that
   have been discussed in the literature, and has implications for
   several issues in quantum measurement theory. It also shows how,
   even for a single measurement, probabilities may be interpreted as
   relative frequencies in unitary (Everettian) quantum mechanics. We
   also argue that after discarding a zero-norm part of the
   wavefunction, the remainder consists of a superposition of
   indistinguishable terms, so that arguably collapse of the
   wavefunction is irrelevant, and the many worlds of Everett's
   interpretation are unified into one. Finally, the analysis suggests
   a cosmological interpretation of quantum theory in which the wave
   function describes the actual spatial collection of identical
   quantum systems, and quantum uncertainty is attributable to the
   observer's inability to self-locate in this collection. 


Comments:   17 pages, 2 figures
Subjects: 	Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Cosmology and Extragalactic 
Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology 
(gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)

Cite as:arXiv:1008.1066v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1066v1 [quant-ph]



Brent



On 29 Aug 2010, at 00:59, ronaldheld wrote:


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.0624v2.pdf
Any comments on this large apper?
 Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.