On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so
by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined,
It is well defined in epistemic interpretations. But those rely on
an implicit dualism.
That is what I thought after reading von Neumann, and London-&-Bauer,
but then reading Shimony I realized that such a dualism does not make
sense, and that it leads to solipisism.
and many incompatible theories are proposed for it, and Everett
showed we don't need it,
But then we need to derive the classical world from the quantum.
We need to derive the appearance of the classical world. This is well
explained by Everett+decoherence.
With comp we start from classical arithmetic, and we derive the
appearance of the quantum, and then we ca use decoherence to explain
the re-appearance of the classical physical worlds. It is really:
classical ===> quantum ===> classical
if we assume comp or weaker.
Feynman called the collapse, a collective hallucination, but then
with comp so is the wave.
It is misleading to use a non understood controversal idea in a
domain (the wave collapse in physics) to apply it on complex non
solved problem in another domain (the mind body problem).
There are no known phenomena capable of collapsing the wave,
Decoherence theory provides a mechanism, although the basis problem
is open. It is of a piece with the problem of deriving the
classical from the quantum.
I have never understood the basis problem. It is quite similar to
comp. You have to fix a base to do the math, and then you can show
that all appearances, from the first person perspective are
independent of the choice of the basis. then we can understand
empirically why some bases will seem more important, as natiure did a
choice of measuring apparatus for us a long time ago, but all this can
be described in any basis. My feeling is that Everett got this right
at the start.
nor any known evidences that the wave does collapse.
Collapse appears all the time,
LOL. Show me one.
and a good theory must save appearances.
Everett showed that the appearances are saved, in the memory of the
observers.
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
