Re: [ Jacques Mallah]

From: Quentin Anciaux <>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:06:10 +0100


2009/2/6 russell standish <>

> ----- Forwarded message from Kevin Tryon <> -----
> I see that one of the earlier participants on the Everything list has now
> taken it upon himself to educate the masses because the "cat is out of the
> bag" and QI has become a familiar topic to many.
> Does he say anything in this article that he hasn't said on the Everything
> list in his struggles against QI?
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> I have now read the whole of Jacques Mallah's "paper", and to put it
> mildly, it is disappointing. I would have expected more from him. It
> is neither the "definitive debunking" hoped for by the author, nor is
> it persuasive in the rhetorical sense. What little technical detail he
> provides obscures, rather than illuminates the issue.
> So what is the paper? I mentioned the interesting comment on how we
> should expect to find ourselves a Boltzmann brain shortly after the
> big bang, but there was no follow up to this. I have no idea how he
> came up with that notion.
> His discussion of the Born rule is incorrect. The probability given by
> the Born rule is not the square of the state vector, but rather the square
> modulus of the inner product of some eigenvector with the original
> state, appropriately normalised to make it a probability. After
> observation, the state vector describing the new will be proportional
> to the eigenvector corresponding the measured eigenvalue, but nothing
> in QM says anything about its amplitude. Indeed it is conventional to
> normalise the resulting state vector, as a computational convenience -
> but this is an entirely different proposition to Mallah's.
> What I think he is trying to discuss, somewhat clumsily, in the
> section on measure, is the ASSA notion of a unique well-defined
> measure for all observer moments. This has been discussed in this
> list extensively, and also summarised in my book. But it would sure
> confuse anyone not familiar with the notion.

I've read too and all his argument is an argument against ASSA not QI nor

> He goes on to mention rather briefly in passing his doomsday style
> argument against QI, but not in detail. Which is just as well, as that
> argument predicts that we should be neonatal infants!
> He also mentions Tegmark's amoeba croaks argument, which is not
> actually an argument against QI, but rather a discussion of what QI
> might actually mean. Contrary to what some people might think, QI
> doesn't predict one would necessarily experience being vastly older
> than the rest of the population. It just predicts that we should all
> experience a "good innings", and that what happens after that is
> rather unpredictable - it may be lapsing into senesence, it may be followed
> by rebirth into a different consciousness, it may be a form of
> afterlife, or of uploading Singulatarian style.

Well if you are "rebirth" in another consciousness for me it means you're
dead, so rebirth without memory is equal to real death.

But if comp is true (hence RSSA) and no cul-de-sac hold, then there always
exists a continuation of you with your memory... if you loose your memory I
don't see how it can count as a continuation ? neither causaly nor does it
shows similarity.


> So sorry Jacques - you need to do better. I'm sure you can!
> Cheers
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> Australia
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
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 Fri Feb 06 2009 - 06:06:21 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST