George Levy says:
"Yet you do feel conscious, don't you? How do you explain this?"
Yes, we observe that there exists a 'feeling of consciousness'. That is all
we *know* to exist. I *speculate* that there may be more than one such
feeling, in fact an infinite number as that would be simplest
(kolmogorov-occam). Why do you suppose the universe need be any more complex
than 'evertything exists'?. How do you explain your irritating insistence
that there is something more to explain?
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 February, 2000 10:02 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel
>
> In a message dated 02/23/2000 12:30:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
>
> > > jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > > > > Since I do not buy the concept of objective reality, I do not
> > > >
> > > > Then you are no better than a Copenhagenist. It's precisely the
> > > > fact that non-belief in objective reality is a form of insanity
> that
> > > > spawned the MWI in the first place.
> > >
> > > The Copenhagen school lost faith in the power of reason and they did
> not
> > > believe 100% in QM. They failed to explore the full implications of
> QM
> > > (without the wave collapse phenomemon).
> > >
> > > Einstein who opposed the Copenhagen School, died in 1955 in
> Princeton.
> > That
> > > same year, a young graduate student, Hugh Everett III, joined
> Princeton
> > > University and two years later, under the guidance of John Archibald
> > Wheeler,
> > > he published his doctoral dissertation which he called a "Relative
> State
> > > Formulation of quantum mechanics" in the Reviews of Modern Physics,
> > Volumer
> > > 29, No. 3, pages 454-462, July 1957. This paper clearly positions him
> as
> a
> >
> > > relativist.
> > >
> > > Einstein claimed that no observer in an inertial frame is privileged;
>
> > Everett
> > > asserted that no observer state in superposition is privileged.
> Everett
> > had
> > > the courage and vision to continue the quest that Einstein started.
> He
> is
> > the
> > > true inheritor of Einstein's mantle.
> >
> > It is well known that Einstein believed in an objective
> > reality. That's why he made the EPR argument to Bohr.
> > Everett did indeed extend the work of Einstein. That part I agree
> > with. Like Einstein, he believed in an objective reality. When he
> talked
> > about observers in a superposition, he clearly believed that they exist
> in
> > some objective sense. That's how he could go beyond Copenhagen.
> >
> > > Jacques, to call me "no better than a Copenhagenist" shows me your
> true
> > > measure and your unfortunate lack of comprehension in this matter. I
> am
> a
> > > relativist.
> >
> > No, you yourself said you're a subjectivist, anti-realist. That's
> > the problem, not the fact that you don't privilege one term in a
> > superposition, because neither do I.
> > As far as your own measure I took that long ago.
>
> Wonderful! Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with you almost 100%
> except
> for the "anti-realist" part and the fact that I consider measure relative.
>
> :-) Our exchange has brought to focus the really important aspects of our
> difference. Thank you!
>
> We are both relativist. Our difference is that you are an objectivist like
>
> Einstein whereas I am a subjectivist. I am not sure if Everett was an
> objectivist or a subjectivist.
>
> There is no problem with the relativist-objectivist point of view as long
> as
> you restrict yourself to non-self (3rd person) issues such as inertial
> frames
> of reference like Einstein did. However, as soon as you start talking
> about
> consciousness and quantum immortality which are, as Bruno calls them first
>
> person issues, then you are led inexorably from the objective point of
> view
> to the subjective one. Pushing the concept of relativity from Einstein's
> objective frames to its final conclusion, the self, you'll discover that
> the
> self becomes the ultimate frame of reference. The mind then becomes a
> frame
> of reference and relativity is expressed at least in part by Shannon
> mutual
> infomation theory. I like to think of "mutual information" as "relative
> information." Other branches of mathematics that could bear on this
> problem
> is axiomatic theory and Goedel's work.
>
> I am not sure if Everett did envisioned Quantum immortality and if he
> actually made the transition from objectivism to subjectivism.
>
> If however, you maintain an objective point of view, you forgo any
> understanding of consciousness. Objectively speaking, you are only a mass
> comprised mostly of water, nitrogen, phosporus and trace minerals totally
> void of consciousness. As an objective relativist you would deny any
> consciousness to anyone. Therefore, it is not surprising that you also
> deny
> Quantum immortality.
>
> Yet you do feel conscious, don't you? How do you explain this?
>
> In summary, you can't possibly simultaneously retain objectivity,
> relativity
> and consciousness. One of them has to go. My choice was to keep
> relativity
> and consciousness, and become a subjectivist. However objectivity is not
> necessarily dead as I explain below.
>
> Fred Chen wrote the following:
>
> >Okay I may seem a dinosaur, but the illusion of an objective reality is
> at
> least
> >helpful to provide a mental framework to analyze things. Let me
> illustrate
> just
> >with a simple example from my physics education. In my general physics
> class
> in
> >college, it was taught that an inertial reference frame was any reference
>
> frame
> >that was not accelerating relative to the fixed stars. The 'fixed stars'
> is
> >obviously a silly 'absolute' reference frame, because they are not that,
> but
> it is
> >still a convenient standard to reference to when talking about other
> reference
> >frames, which are relative to each other. I don't know if that clarifies
> my
> >perspective a bit more. I cannot speak for the others.
>
> >Fred
>
> Yes I agree, the illusion of an objective reality is helpful in providing
> a
> mental framework for analyzing things. The reason why we have such an
> illusion is that, most of the time, our frames of reference are extremely
> close together. Our points of view do not differ significantly and
> therefore
> the world appears to be the same. So it's OK to be an objectivist in most
> cases. As I mentioned above, It was acceptable for Einstein to be an
> objectivist because his frames of reference were third-person-based and
> did
> not involve the self and more specifically the continuing existence of the
>
> self.
>
> However, when one starts to think in terms of consciousness and Quantum
> Immortality, the objectivity paradigm doesn't cut it anymore. In those
> cases,
> the relevent frames of reference are consciousness-based and anthropically
>
> dependent. To be more specific the frames of reference are comprised of
> the
> information and data processing capability in the mind of the observer,
> plus
> all the anthropically necessary sustaining factors in the environment. An
> example of sustaining factor would be the state of the cyanide capsule in
> the
> Schoedinger cat experiment. The state of the cyanide capsule represents
> the
> difference between the frames of reference for the cat that survives and
> the
> cat that dies.
>
> George Levy
Received on Fri Feb 25 2000 - 01:35:07 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST