Hal Finney wrote:
It's something of a semantic difference whether worlds should be
said
to fuse in the MWIOne way of describing it is to say that there
are two worlds, one where the photon passes through one slit and one where
it passes through the
other. Then the worlds fuse when the photon
I think taking a fundamental look at this problem could be fruitful. Here is
an idea from an article that I have been working on hopefully to publish.
Imagine the MW to be total chaos (like the primeval chaos, Tohu va Bohu, full
of potentialities but with nothing inside???) . Time could then be
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 05:35:28PM +0200, Gilles HENRI wrote:
> James, here you assume that the conscious process derives from physical
> laws, exactly what I support. In the "everything computable exists",
> nothing prevents to generate Universes where conscious structures do exist,
> but don't h
Ah - you've just pointed out the fallacy in my last post. I retract
it. This is a nicer problem than I had imagined.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 4:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
> I'm just skimming atthe moment, but the idea of " universes
>containing SAS apparently observing a environment without physical laws."
>seems absurd. How can a process occur, such as the process of observing,
>without athe necessary sequence appearing to obey laws?
James, here you assume
Gilles Henri wrote:
>Indeed I think we agree on what is the key point. Let me precise my
>position with respect to comp: I indeed think that conscious properties are
>related to computational properties. What I try to argue is
>1) that this computation can not be duplicated like an ordinary softw
Russell Standish wrote:
>I believe that the statement m(C) >> m(B) is related to the problem of
>why we should believe we have evolved by Darwinian evolution rather
>than just created "ex-nihilo" as Creation Scientists would have us believe.
(cf Gilles Henri:
>> >A : the subset of universes wit
--Original Message-
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 3:08 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Why physical laws
>
> > >
> > >I'll try to put it in more quantitati
>
>My feeling, Gilles, is that you have an excellent understanding of my
>point. Now, for some reason you don't believe in comp, and for that
>reason, you take my counter-intuitive result as an opportunity to throw
>away
>the comp hypothesis.
Indeed I think we agree on what is the key point. Let
>
> I enjoyed this post very much. I have one question and a comment.
> Q: I didn't know that the most general field for a vector space
> is the set of complex numbers; why is this so?
> Comment: You ask why QM should be linear. In the MWI FAQ, Price
> gives a good Anthropic argument for why
y we see "C".
> >
> >However, I think that the "everything computable is realized" hypothesis
> >would predict m(A)>>m(B)>>m(C), and so the reason why we are in C is much
> >more mysterious with this hypothesis. Of course if you think you can
>
I enjoyed this post very much. I have one question and a comment.
Q: I didn't know that the most general field for a vector space
is the set of complex numbers; why is this so?
Comment: You ask why QM should be linear. In the MWI FAQ, Price
gives a good Anthropic argument for why this should
is excluded by the (generalized) anthropic principle,
>so we explain satisfactorily why we see "C".
>
>However, I think that the "everything computable is realized" hypothesis
>would predict m(A)>>m(B)>>m(C), and so the reason why we are in C is much
>m
excluded by the (generalized) anthropic principle,
so we explain satisfactorily why we see "C".
However, I think that the "everything computable is realized" hypothesis
would predict m(A)>>m(B)>>m(C), and so the reason why we are in C is much
more mysterious with this hypothesis. Of course if you think you can
justify also m(C)>>m(B) with comp, it would have the bonus to explain why
physical laws exist (which must be postulated in the first stage), but I am
really not convinced of that.
Gilles
Wei Dai wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 01:54:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > To answer your question, I could say that, in my opinion, the real essence of
> > the world is disorder. The world is becoming undone every Planck time and is
> > also reconstituted every Planck Time, as Jam
Gilles Henri wrote
>I suspect that the comp hypothesis would in fact favour the solution where
>there is actually no external world at all, but only your (for me, my!)
>mind, because it is much shorter to describe ONLY a brain state than the
>whole Universe surrounding it, although perfectly equiv
A 11:16 +0100 9/06/99, Marchal a écrit:
>WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
>---
>
>>Chris Maloney wrote:
>><<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
>>not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
>>
WHY PHYSICAL LAWS ?
---
>Chris Maloney wrote:
><<< The answer is that the structure(s) we are in obey physical laws,
>not because they were cast by fiat from some omnipotent being, but
>simply because the structures that do obey physical laws are more
>
y system.
> -Original Message-
> From: Wei Dai [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 11:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Why physical laws
>
> On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 01:54:03AM -0400, [EMAIL PROT
> Dr. Russell Standish wrote:
>
> One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well
> defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on
> one's frame of reference.
>
> You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions
> to consider whi
05 AM
> To: everything-list
> Subject: Re: Why physical laws
>
> Alastair Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > Christopher,
> >
> > I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and
> the
> > ideas presented overlap to a degree with my o
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
> ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
> that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
>
> From: Christopher Maloney <[EMAIL PROTECT
22 matches
Mail list logo
