On 27/07/07, Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> What are your knowledge of quantum mechanics?
Not very deep - only what I've gleaned in a largely non-mathematical
way from incessantly reading and musing about the topic for years.
But I think I'm sufficiently orientated in the basic ideas and
alternative interpretations to have a chance at following up at least
some specific topics, that you might suggest, in more detail. But
this can wait if you feel it's premature.
> The empirical
> test consists in comparing those multiverse strurctures atatched to
> entitiess-points of view and what we observe ... indirectly
> (observation is always indirect, ok?).
Definitely OK. Perhaps an example of a specific comparison of this
kind would be a good starting point? The following may not be
relevant in this context, but I'm particularly interested in something
you said elsewhere ('simulation argument') about how comp can relate
OMs (and presumably the multiverse structures associated with them)
geometrically 'through time'. Is this is an area where comp
consequently can recover 'dynamically experienced' observer histories
within a block or static context more satisfactorily than e.g. the
Deutsch 'disconnected slice' view as propounded in FOR?
> Yes. You can implore, cajole or simply ask. (I'm a bit less sure for
> the wheedling given that I don't know what that means!).
wheedle
-verb (used with object)
1. to endeavor to influence (a person) by smooth, flattering, or
beguiling words or acts: We wheedled him incessantly, but he would not
consent.
2. to persuade (a person) by such words or acts: She wheedled him into
going with her.
3. to obtain (something) by artful persuasions: I wheedled a new car
out of my father.
-verb (used without object)
4. to use beguiling or artful persuasions: I always wheedle if I
really need something.
[Origin: 1655-65; orig. uncert.]
David
>
>
> Le 27-juil.-07, à 13:31, David Nyman a écrit :
>
> > How will I ever know? I suppose I'm asking: what specifically are the
> > critical tests?
>
> See my answer to Tom. A specific test would be to test some Bell
> inequality in the comp phys. To say more I have to be more technic, and
> I am not sure this is not a bit premature. Let me think ... Not all
> attempt to explain this in the past (of the list) has been successful,
> so I have to work the technics.
> What are your knowledge of quantum mechanics? Have you study some
> quantum algorithm, Deutsch problem, counterfactual quantum
> computations. You know, to ANY points of view (first, second, third,
> ..., of machines, angels, Gods,) you can associate formally some
> multiverse structures. As you know, observation has lead to expect
> those multiverse to exist in some more palatable ways. The empirical
> test consists in comparing those multiverse strurctures atatched to
> entitiess-points of view and what we observe ... indirectly
> (observation is always indirect, ok?).
>
>
> > Either way, could I
> > implore, cajole, wheedle, or simply ask (but never force) you to
> > explain the main thrust in English with as few preconceptions as
> > possible?
>
> Yes. You can implore, cajole or simply ask. (I'm a bit less sure for
> the wheedling given that I don't know what that means!).
> As for the preconceptions, *you* have to say the relevant "Why?" and
> "How so?" in the relevant places ...
> I will try asap.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jul 27 2007 - 10:54:29 PDT