Re: Maudlin's argument

From: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:21:52 -0000

Russell Standish wrote:
> I don't quite follow your argument. OMs are not computations. Whatever
> they are under computationalism, they must be defined by a set of
> information, a particular meaning to a particular observer.
> Quantum states have this property. For observables that the state is
> an eigenvalue of, the state contains precise information about those
> observables. For observables that the state is not an eigenvalue of,
> there is still information about relative proportions of different
> outcomes of measurement.

A wavefunction itself does contain information about the 'relative
proportions of different outcomes of measurement' (as you put it) but
extracting this information requires 'extra assumptions' apart from QM.
 We don't see half-dead, half-alive cats after all. Why not? Why do
we only 'observe' classical reality (i.e objects in definite states)?
This is what is not fully explained by QM.

Perhaps I should revise what I said somewhat: I can agree with you that
the 'consistent histories' that you mentioned earlier are equiavlent to
observer histories. But it's the supposed derivation of these
'consistent histories' from the QM multiverse picture that I'm
doubting. In other words I think that somewhere along the way some
'extra non-QM assumptions' have slipped in ;)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sat Oct 14 2006 - 23:22:09 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST