On 17 Nov 2008, at 00:29, Michael Rosefield wrote:
> If there is a split, does it create differentiated consciousnesses?
> I doubt it.
I guess you are talking about the QM splitting, and not the comp-
splitting. In both case it is better to talk about consciousness
differentiation instead of "real universe spliiting".
The idea is that the state ME X (up + down) is the same state as M X
up + ME X down, when I am on the side of a particlle in the state UP +
DOWN. Only if I observe it, my memory will differentiate into
ME(seeing UP) X up + ME(seeing down) X down, where "ME(seeing up)"
represents the state of ME with my memory of have seen the particle
with spin UP, and "X" represents the usual tensor product.
This is what is predicted by QM-without collapse. The QM + collapse
says that the state "ME(seeing UP) X up + ME(seeing down) X down"
colapse into ME(seeing UP) X up, or ME(seeing down) X down, with some
probability. Such a collapse does contradict the wave equation, and
for each precise proposition of a physical collapse, experiments
exists which have refuted it. The collapse makes also no sense in
special and general relativity, and is pure non sense in quantum
cosmology.
All this, of course is not relevant, given that QM without collapse
uses the comp hypothesis (or some weakenings) which forces to derive
the SWE from the "superposition states" inherent to the arithmetical
computationalist dovetailing.
Quantum Mechanicians still presuppose a material world (be it a
multiverse), but this just cannot work (by UDA+MGA). Soon I will
explain MGA on the list. I have yet to be sure people really
understand why it is needed.
Bruno Marchal
> Perhaps there are two main causes of splitting: where an event would
> cause different 'observables', or where an event by necessity breaks
> the mechanism of consciousness into different streams. In the latter
> case, there could be a 'connective-tissue' of undecohered universes
> containing weird brains-in-superposition; these aren't
> consciousness, but perhaps we get a bit of bleed-through from the
> edges.
>
> Or is that just too darned uninformed and ridiculous...?
>
>
> 2008/11/16 Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden>
> For instance, you don't have to perform a QM-experiment with explicit
> setup, looking around is enough - photons hit your eyes with different
> polarizations; why should no splitting occur here?
>
> Why only in the case where you perform an up/down-amplification
> experiment?
>
> >
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 Mon Nov 17 2008 - 09:40:06 PST