On Fri, 2 Jul 1999 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> In a message dated 99-07-01 21:27:20 EDT, jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> << The MWI is deterministic, so the standard idea of probability does
> not apply. >>
>
> Not true.
>
> A dice has six sides, and a dice throw will generate one number in the range
> from 1 to 6, exactly in that range, not more not less. This fact is
> deterministic. However, the ACTUAL number that the dice will produce is
> probabilistic.
That depends on what physics is involved. If Newtonian physics
were true, the result would of course be determined by the initial
conditions, and with our limited knowledge we would pick a uniform
Baysesian distribution on that range.
If physics was nondeterministic and that somehow affected the
roll, only then would the die give a true random result.
If the MWI was true and that somehow affected the roll, all the
results would be true, and with our limited knowledge we again pick a
uniform Bayesian distribution. The randomness is once again an illusion,
produced by the fact that not all observers see the same thing.
> Similarly, all the possible links allowing consciousness to propagate from
> one frame in the MW to another are deterministic that is, constrained by the
> physical laws, and mirroring these laws, our rationality. However, the actual
> frame where one particular conscious PERSPECTIVE will find itself, is
> probabilistic. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This is precisely the
> essence of quantum indeterminacy.
It sounds like you believe that randomness really exists, that it
is not just an illusion, similar to the 'many minds' idea of David Albert.
If so you believe in hidden variables, not the usual physics. You might
as well admit it.
> So while the MW itself is deterministic, our perception of it is
> probabilistic.
That makes no sense. Either it is deterministic or not. I say it
is. If I am a computation implemented by the wavefunction, then given the
mapping of physical to formal states which defines that computation, and
given the initial condition of the wavefunction, what I see is perfectly
deterministic. Of course there are many such possible mappings.
> I say:
> > One more issue about consciousness. It only exists in the eyes of the
> > beholder.
>
> Jacques responds:
> << Either it exists or it doesn't.>>
>
> I think the root of the difference between Jacques and the rest of us is in
> our perception of the world. Jacque believes in an absolute physical world
> and we believe in a relative one.
I sure don't believe in a 'relative world' whatever that's
supposed to mean, but that doesn't mean the world can't be purely
mathematical. Physical or mathematical, something still either exists or
not.
> Why does Jacques believe in the absolute and we believe in the relative?
> (This is just my guess) Maybe it's in our perception of the size of the MW.
> Is it finite or infinite? Is it the same as c, the continuum. Or larger?
I don't see what you're trying to say, but the number of observers
is *obviously* infinite.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Tue Jul 06 1999 - 16:55:59 PDT