Re: AUH/MWI/UDA (Was: Everything is Just a Memory)

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu Feb 10 03:51:39 2000

Alastair Malcolm (AM) and Fred Chen (FC) wrote (in part) :


>>FC: Can it be argued that the "simplicity" (of QM interpretation,
>computational
>> implementation) of MWI gives it a larger measure among other
>possibilities? Or
>> is it the large number of worlds generated by MWI splittings that would do
>this?
>
>AM: Russell's paper implies simplicity alone is sufficient, but in case it is
>not totally watertight (I am not competent to fully assess this), here is a
>(pretty Heath-Robinson) argument showing how splittings might conceivably
>contribute:
>
>Suppose the minimum functional bit string length for a specification of
>Everett many worlds is n. Then we are comparing the measure of SAS's of all
>combinations/interpretations of bits up to n. (Bits above n could 'multiply
>up' whatever has been specified below n either via different possible
>interpretations, different 'don't care' bit combinations, or direct
>'multiplier' bit-string segments, dependent (at least partly) on the
>particular version of the AUH chosen. Effectively these factors above n
>'cancel through' for all different combinations/interpretations of the first
>n bits, and so can be ignored.)
>
>Now, in order to 'out-measure' Everett, a theory would have to produce the
>complexity needed for SAS's well *within* the n bits, so that the surplus
>bits can be used to outnumber the worlds/SAS's produced in the splittings of
>Everett's theory, or else it must itself produce Everett-like splittings
>(and SAS's) with less than n bits (that is, with greater simplicity than
>Everett). There is little indication where such a theory could possibly come
>from.

Read [] as necessary.

COMP -> [](such a theory comes from COMP)

(COMP + MWI) -> [](COMP -> MWI),

(COMP + SEUC) -> [](COMP -> SEUC)) ; SEUC = Schroedinger Equation is
                                         (essentially) Universally
Correct

I agree that COMP is not a theory, but is a principle, based, among
other things, on a non axiomatisable plenitude (arithmetical truth
actually).

COMP => 1-SEUC, 3-SEUC ? I don't know.

Bruno
Received on Thu Feb 10 2000 - 03:51:39 PST