On 17 Nov 2008, at 00:29, Michael Rosefield wrote: > If there is a split, does it create differentiated consciousnesses? > I doubt it.
I guess you are talking about the QM splitting, and not the comp- splitting. In both case it is better to talk about consciousness differentiation instead of "real universe spliiting". The idea is that the state ME X (up + down) is the same state as M X up + ME X down, when I am on the side of a particlle in the state UP + DOWN. Only if I observe it, my memory will differentiate into ME(seeing UP) X up + ME(seeing down) X down, where "ME(seeing up)" represents the state of ME with my memory of have seen the particle with spin UP, and "X" represents the usual tensor product. This is what is predicted by QM-without collapse. The QM + collapse says that the state "ME(seeing UP) X up + ME(seeing down) X down" colapse into ME(seeing UP) X up, or ME(seeing down) X down, with some probability. Such a collapse does contradict the wave equation, and for each precise proposition of a physical collapse, experiments exists which have refuted it. The collapse makes also no sense in special and general relativity, and is pure non sense in quantum cosmology. All this, of course is not relevant, given that QM without collapse uses the comp hypothesis (or some weakenings) which forces to derive the SWE from the "superposition states" inherent to the arithmetical computationalist dovetailing. Quantum Mechanicians still presuppose a material world (be it a multiverse), but this just cannot work (by UDA+MGA). Soon I will explain MGA on the list. I have yet to be sure people really understand why it is needed. Bruno Marchal > Perhaps there are two main causes of splitting: where an event would > cause different 'observables', or where an event by necessity breaks > the mechanism of consciousness into different streams. In the latter > case, there could be a 'connective-tissue' of undecohered universes > containing weird brains-in-superposition; these aren't > consciousness, but perhaps we get a bit of bleed-through from the > edges. > > Or is that just too darned uninformed and ridiculous...? > > > 2008/11/16 Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For instance, you don't have to perform a QM-experiment with explicit > setup, looking around is enough - photons hit your eyes with different > polarizations; why should no splitting occur here? > > Why only in the case where you perform an up/down-amplification > experiment? > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
