Re: The Anthropic Principle Boundary Conditions

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