Marchal wrote in part
> You should also realise that the discussion, as far as I'm concerned,
> doesn't take QM for granted. I'm trying to derive the QM-measure
> from the hypothesis of computationalism in philosophy of mind.
Yes, I've been following this list for a while and I certainly agree on
the plenitude. As for the possibility of actually deriving the laws of
our universe and making a testable prediction, I'm not so sure. But I'm
rooting for you guys :-).
> Tell me if you accept the Many World Interpretation of QM.
> In that case, if you don't accept splitting, I guess you disagree
> with the Q.19 of Price's Everett FAQ
> http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#detect
> Worlds would never split but would differentiate, if there are
> many worlds and non splitting.
>
> Perhaps you don't believe in the MWI ?
I accept the MWI and I disagree with Price's FAQ on splitting.
Best regards,
Niclas Thisell
Received on Thu Dec 09 1999 - 09:12:16 PST