JH says:
"I think we would live our lives differently if we believed MWI.
Firstly, our
philosopy would be more 'Buddhist' as described in
http://www.higgo.com/quantum/buddhism.htm."
I could not possibly disagree with anything more than this.
What MWI tells us is that reality is WHOLLY OBJECTIVE, and rigorously
deterministic. That some events appear probabilistic is a consequence
of the fact that we are embedded within the universal wave function and
not standing "outside" of it at some Archimedean point.
Subjectivity has nothing to do with MWI, or any other interpretation of
QM for that matter. It has to do with the way the brain operates, and
right now we don't have much in the way of understanding. Given the
size and characteristic timescale of its functional components (neurons
and subcellular mechanisms within neurons), we can see with
near-certainty that the brains is basically a classical mechanism.
Exactly how consciousness is generated is not known, and until we have
an experimental basis for talk about this, due modesty is required in
speculating. At least people like Gerald Edelman, Francis Crick,
Christof Koch, the Churchlands, etc. are trying to create the
experimental base. Sating that consciousness is computational may seem
lie the only possibility right now, but someone living in Athens in the
4th century B.C. might have thought that Aristotle's then-current ideas
on physics were the only possible ones. Talk without experimental facts
is cheap.
I am forever puzzled why people try to create mysticism out of QM.
There is nothing whatever mystical about it. Why didn't people a couple
of centuries ago try to do the same thing with Newtonian mechanics,
saying that action at a distance implied a mysterious unity of the
cosmos, confirming ancient religious insights? Were they just more
sensible?
Decision theory FOR AN EFFECTIVELY CLASSICAL OBJECT like a human being
has nothing whatever to do with MWI. Why should you care any more about
your counterparts in other "branches" of the wave function than you do
about anyone in the ordinary quasi-classical world? Even thinking this
way smacks of a not-so-hidden egalitarianism, and reminds me very much
of the arguments in John Rawls' crackpot boo "A Theory of Justice"
(Harvard, 1971). Just as with James Higgo's proposal, Rawls preaches
EXPLICIT and DELIBERATE economic inefficiency in the name of some
ill-defined "fairness."
JH says:
"A full, deep understanding of physics is equivalent in some ways to the
Buddhist concept of enlightenment. The idea of
self is relinquished. The very fabric of reality is seen to be
subjective. The absurdity of attachments becomes clear."
I say:
(a) the Buddhist concept of enlightenment is like mindlessness
(b) a full, deep understanding of physics is QUANTITATIVE and can be
used to manipulate the world to your benefit; to create incredible and
marvelous technologies, whereas the Buddhist concept of enlightenment is
mostly empty words and mere mumbo-jumbo, impotent to reshape matter
(c) the idea of your "self" is the basic data of existence you have--if
you relinquish it partially, you become what we call crazy
(i.e.,psychotic) , and if you relinquish it completely, you become
effectively dead
(d) The absurdity of NOT having attachments becomes clear when you think
about economics, which is the relevant subject area here. Attachments,
and the desire for more things, drive people to achievement. That's the
economic basis of civilization.
Buddhism, like Christianity (and all traditional religions), has done
nothing in its long history besides acting as an anesthetic.
Science--hard knowledge of objective reality--is the only thing that
counts.
Steve Price, MD
Received on Tue Jul 27 1999 - 07:22:18 PDT