On 21 Jun 2017, at 08:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 21/06/2017 4:03 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:15:31PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 19/06/2017 10:23 am, Russell Standish wrote:
I know Scott wouldn't go as far as me. For me, all such
irreversible
processes are related to conscious entities in some way. Whilst
agreeing that Geiger counters are unlikely to be conscious, I would
say that the output of Geiger counter is not actually discrete
until
observed by a conscious experimenter.
That sounds remarkably like the "many minds" interpretation of
quantum mechanics. This is disfavoured by most scientists because it
leaves the physics of the billions of years before the emergence of
the first "conscious" creature unresolved -- the first consciousness
would cause an almighty collapse on the many minds reading.
Each consciousness causes "an almighty collapse" in er own mind
independently of any other. It's a pure 1p phenomena.
It is actually a 3p phenomenon because there is inter-subjective
agreement about the fact that measurements give definite results.
Inter-subjectivity does not imply 3p, as it can be "only" 1p plural.
Let me illustrate this with a variant of the WM duplication.
Imagine that Bruce and John are undergoing the WM-duplication
*together*.
By this I mean they both enter the scanning-annihilating box, and are
both reconstituted in Washington and in Moscow.
And let us assume they do it repetitively, which means they come back
to Helsinki, and do it again together.
Obviously, the line-life past that each copies describes in its
personal diaries grows like H followed by a sequence of W and M. The
number of copies grows exponentially (2^n). After ten iterations, we
have 2^10 = 1024 individuals, who share an indeterminate experiences.
With minor exceptions, they all agree that the experience has always
given each times a precise outcome, always belonging to {W, M}.
Importantly the duplicated couples agreed (which was the Washington
or Moscow outcome) in all duplication. They mostly all agreed they did
not found any obvious algorithm to predict the sequence (the exception
might concerned the guys in nameable stories, like:
WWWWWWWWWW
MMMMMMMMMM
Or the development of some remarkable real number in binary, like the
binary expansion of PI, sqrt(2), sqr(n), etc. In this case, the
computable is made rare (and more and more negligible when n grows,
those histories are "white rabbits histories").
That is what I mean by first person plural. It concerns population of
machine sharing self-multiplication. it is interesting to compare the
quantum linear self-superposition with the purely arithmetical one.
There is no collapse at all at the 3p level, nor even decoherence
as such.
Decoherence is a well-understood physical phenomenon that has been
widely observed.
I can't agree more. It might be, and should be when assuming digital
mechanism, a first person plurality phenomenon. In the (quantum) MW,
is the fission/differentiation of histories brought by measurement,
and the measurement itself is part of the histories.
I do not know what you mean by saying "nor even decoherence as such."
Maybe Russell meant in the (3-1) view of the (assumed by Everett)
Universal wave. Plausible. The universal wave describes a change of
base. It is God's vision (in this still physicalist view).
Everett, that is QM without the collapse axiom, looks already like a
solution of the computationalist mind-body problem. But it works only
if Everett QM is itself derivable from (intensional) arithmetic.
Also, you seem to be confusing the inter-subjective 3p view with
Tegmark's bird view. There is no person, body, or consciousness that
ever has the bird view -- the bird is a purely formal construct and
has nothing to do with mind or consciousness.
That is an interesting remark, but it is a highly debatable question.
See my conversation with David Nyman, about the "the nature" of the 0p
view: is it more 1p or 3p? Is it more like a thing or a person? Well,
I don't know. Is the arithmetical reality conceivable as a person? You
can see it has an infinite (and highly non mechanical) body of
(arithmetical) knowledge, but this would be a poetical acknowledgment
of our ignorance.
Even though everything might remain unitary at that level, no one
can ever experience the consequences of that unitary evolution.
Hmm... You speculate that there is no global 1p for the global unitary
evolution, which is an open problem to me. Hard to know.
Nevertheless, assuming QM, you do *experience* the *consequences* of
the unitary evolution, right here and right now, directly, and
indirectly, as you are using a machine whose miniaturization has been
made possible by the QM laws + human inference of the QM laws.
With mechanism, the QM laws have to be derived from the first person
views emulated in elementary number theory, or from any first order
Church-Turing-Post -Kleene equivalent theory.
Bruno
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
