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

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:39:28 EDT

In a message dated 06/16/2000 4:44:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

*> jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
*

*> QM is the laws of physics that best explains what we see. I think
*

that

*> says it all. I should point out that there is really no summation
*

involved,

*>
*

*> especially not a sum over worlds. There is just -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi.
*

*> Of course, you could write psi as a sum of orthogonal functions and you
*

*> could choose nearly decoherent such functions.
*

*>
*

*> In the computationalist view, there is a wavefunction, and it
*

implements

*>
*

*> computations. These implementations may resemble those that would be
*

*> produced by classical mechanics, modified by interference terms that may
*

be

*> small.
*

*>
*

OK, the Shoedinger equation is -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi, Why? Why does the

equation have an imaginary form? What is the meaning of Planck's constant it

the CONTEXT of the MWI? Just saying, as you do, that the SE is what it is

just because, is adopting the same POSITIVIST attitude as the Copenhagen

school. I am looking for the INTERPRETATION of this equation in terms of the

MW. Is it possible to derive this equation from a PURELY COMPUTATIONALIST

APPROACH?

You say that psi can be written in terms of orthogonal (decoherent)

functions. Are those functions equivalent to the individual worlds in the MW?

If so, then we certainly have the ability to be affected by several such

worlds simultaneously because of the phenomenon of superposition. What does

this say about consciousness? Does consciousness have "thickness" across the

MW? How does this fit with the ideas of Lewis and Kriepke?

*>
*

*> You still don't know what computationalism means? It means that
*

certain

*>
*

*> computations give rise to consciousness. It does not explain behavior at
*

*> all, and does not allow zombies
*

It seems that you need to be more precise. Computationalism ASSUMES that

certain computations give rise to consciousness. It does not EXPLAIN

consciousness. And without a third person/ first person theory you can only

talk about behaviors as observed from a third person point of view without

ever describing what it is to be (yourself) conscious.

George

Received on Wed Jun 21 2000 - 13:47:11 PDT

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:39:28 EDT

In a message dated 06/16/2000 4:44:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:

that

involved,

implements

be

OK, the Shoedinger equation is -i hbar d/dt psi = H psi, Why? Why does the

equation have an imaginary form? What is the meaning of Planck's constant it

the CONTEXT of the MWI? Just saying, as you do, that the SE is what it is

just because, is adopting the same POSITIVIST attitude as the Copenhagen

school. I am looking for the INTERPRETATION of this equation in terms of the

MW. Is it possible to derive this equation from a PURELY COMPUTATIONALIST

APPROACH?

You say that psi can be written in terms of orthogonal (decoherent)

functions. Are those functions equivalent to the individual worlds in the MW?

If so, then we certainly have the ability to be affected by several such

worlds simultaneously because of the phenomenon of superposition. What does

this say about consciousness? Does consciousness have "thickness" across the

MW? How does this fit with the ideas of Lewis and Kriepke?

certain

It seems that you need to be more precise. Computationalism ASSUMES that

certain computations give rise to consciousness. It does not EXPLAIN

consciousness. And without a third person/ first person theory you can only

talk about behaviors as observed from a third person point of view without

ever describing what it is to be (yourself) conscious.

George

Received on Wed Jun 21 2000 - 13:47:11 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*