- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

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

Date: Thu Feb 10 03:51:39 2000

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

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

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*