On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > The real problem is you still have
> > not explained why you think the three (MWI, objective reality, and
> > consciousness) are incompatible.
> > Obviously they aren't. I believe in all three. All conscious
> > observer states are objectively real.
> >
> IF there is such a thing as an observer (based on experience, also
> Descartes' "I think")
> THEN there is CONSCIOUSNESS (by definition)
OK, obviously implied by the definitions.
> IF no observer state in superposition is priviledged ( by Everett)
> THEN the observer states are relative to each other,
> thereby upholding RELATIVITY for the observer states (by Everett)
In this one, you just define 'relativity for observer states' to
mean the MWI of QM. I don't like that use of the term, but OK it's just
your private definition.
> IF the frame of reference in RELATIVITY interaction is the observer
> state itself
> (by definition)
Here you define "frame of reference" to mean an observer
state. Again, I don't like that language, but OK.
> THEN the so-called objective point of view is really a subjective point of
> view
> thus upholding SUBJECTIVITY (by definition)
> (Note: Observer state include not only physical state but also mental
> state)
This is the one that doesn't make any sense. Of course, it's
false. The objective description of a system is not an observer state
within that system. Your above definitions don't seem to have any bearing
on your claim, either.
> This is as good and as clear an explanation as I can make.
That's too bad.
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jqm1584.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/
Received on Sun Feb 27 2000 - 12:50:16 PST