Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, andCantor'sAbsoluteInfinity

2002-09-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Brent Meeker wrote: > > Bruno: > > I disagree: in Bohm QM there *are* other branches. This >> follows from the fact that there is no collapse. The SWE is >> obeyed. Bohm just add a potential which forces a (mysterious) >> set of particles with very special initial conditions to >> follow

Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, andCantor'sAbsoluteInfinity (fwd)

2002-09-10 Thread Brent Meeker
On 09-Sep-02, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Brent, >> > Brent Meeker wrote: BreMe: Bohm's QM is empirically identical with >> non-relativistic Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So what does it have to do with AI and the duplication of brains? >>> B

Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, andCantor'sAbsoluteInfinity

2002-09-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Brent, > > Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> BreMe: > >> Bohm's QM is empirically identical with non-relativistic >>> Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So >>> what does it have to do with AI and the duplication of >>> brains? > > >BruMa: > > We (John + me) were refering