SUMMARY [Bruno] ?

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri Jul 9 09:01:46 1999

Hi everyone,

James Higgo suggests to me that I put in a SUMMARY thread
an answer I give him (in a private discussion).

It is no so much a summary than an oversimplification on
what I try to explain.

But may be it can help to clarify the measure and reversal point.

----------------------
Objet : RE: Devil's advocate against Max Tegmark's hypothesis
Envoyé le : 6/07/1919 14:21
Reçu le : 9/07/1999 17:39
Expéditeur : Higgo James, james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
Adressé à : 'Marchal', marchal.domain.name.hidden

Sure - why not submit it to the list as part of the suggested SUMMARY
series, which can one day be compiled into the FAQ. I'm off-loine now until
Monday.
Regards,
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 5:08 PM
> To: Higgo James
> Subject: RE: Devil's advocate against Max Tegmark's hypothesis
>
>
> Hi James,
>
> James :
> >I still can't see why the measure issue is relevant. No matter how small
> the
> >measure of suitable environments, we're in one. No matter how small 'my'
> >measure is I commit suicide, I still live. These ideas are not as
> currentas
> >they were a few months ago. Remind me why you think measure is important.
>
> Bruno:
> The answer is in the original message you are quoting.
> I quote it again:
>
> > Bruno:
> >> Relatively to the immortality question I agree.(measure is not
> >> relevant) But relatively to
> >> the reversal, alias the rabbit problem, alias the constructive
> >> explanation of the physical laws, the measure problem
> >> is the crux of the matter.
>
>
> Look, James, by restricting ourself to the problem of interpreting
> quantum mechanics, here is what I try to say (simplifying a bit):
>
>
> A) Copenhague =
> - Schroedinger equation
> - Probabilist Projection Postulate
> - Ambiguous and/or Lacking (cf J. Mallah's point) Theory of Mind
>
> B) Everett =
> - Schroedinger equation
> - Computationalist theory of Mind
>
> And Everett (and his followers) succeeded in solving the corresponding
> measure problem by justifying the Probabilist Projection Postulate.
> To be sure: even here
> it is hard to say that the measure problem has been definitely solved.
>
> C) Your servitor =
> - Computationalist theory of Mind
>
> And now we must derive both Schroedinger equation and the Probabilist
> Projection Postulate.
> What I have "proved" is that if we don't succeed in deriving Schroedinger
> equation from comp then either comp or Schroedinger Eq. is wrong (or is
> not a physical LAW, i.e. is not universally correct).
> The new measure must explain why we believe in such or such precise
> physical laws.
>
> BTW I think this could interest people in the list. Do you agree I send it
> to the list. I can take into account your comments.
>
> Bruno.
>
>

Nice week-end for EVERY ONE :-)
Bruno
Received on Fri Jul 09 1999 - 09:01:46 PDT