Le 07-août-06, à 15:52, W. C. a écrit :
> >> From: Bruno Marchal >> ... >> Comp says that there is a level of description of yourself such that >> you >> survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will >> simulate >> not only that level but all level belows. So comp makes the following >> prediction: if you look at yourself or at you neighborhood >> sufficiently >> close enough, you can in principle detect, indirectly, (by computing >> the >> relative comp histories) the presence of all the sublevel >> computations. > > Are you talking about meditation? Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like observing your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an electron. > I still can't see how "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of > interfering computations". > Common people can touch and feel the matter (this physical universe). > They > don't need this strange process to see it. I would say that here we are trying to explain those "touch and feel the matter" without begging the question. My working hypothesis is comp. > Your explanation is rather strange. > As said before, I don't think substitution level exists. So Comp. and > UDA > won't work here. Are you saying that your hypothesis is some negation of comp. Then there is no problem with my work of course. (Except that many consequences that I extract from comp remains derivable by much weaker version of comp). > >> So it is enough to observe closely your neighborhood. But of course >> experimental physicists does exactly that, and the fact that they >> infer >> Many-Worlds (many Histories/many computations) from their >> observations can >> be seen retrospectively as a confirmation of comp. >> (This explains that up to now, only people with a good grasp of the >> conceptual difficulties of the quantum theory can swallow the >> consequences >> of comp, more or less). > > I think many good physicist won't agree with you. Of course those physicist would believe in the wave collapse will have more reason than Everett followers to swallow what I say. To be sure I don't take a "many or even all physicists think this or that" as an argument for this or that. Of course it is nice to justify why such "wrong" belief can rise. > >> To be sure "negative interferences" remains quite astonishing (after >> such >> an informal reasoning), but then if you take into account the results >> in >> computer science and mathematical logic, there are evidence that >> "negative >> interference" appears as related to some variant of the incompleteness >> phenomena. This is somehow counter-intuitive and hard to justify in >> "french". More in a summary which should come asap. I hope this >> already >> helps. >> > > Please provide more explanation. > > Thanks. Asap. Bruno 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-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
