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

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri Sep 15 07:54:20 2000

Howard Marks wrote:

*>MWI theory, it seems, to me, needs to address some pivotal issues, such as
*

*>Occam's.
*

To be short I simplify the things just a little bit. I think

most in this list (and Deutsch list) would essentially agree.

Either you want to satisfy *Conceptual* Occam Razor (COR)

Then you choose to formulate QM with schroedinger equation only (+ the

math)

Then you have not only a shorter theory, but you get a

deterministic, local, complete, realist and

democratic (i.e. the observer obeys the same laws as the observed) theory,

without any measurement problem. Of course, you loose the principle of

unicity of measurement outcomes, superposition is contagious, and you get

the MW. It is not a choice.

BTW the expression MWI is misleading. Everett gives a new *formulation* of

QM from which he extracts the interpretation. I know this is controversial

but I agree 100% with Everett. (More on this latter if I find time).

In fact I agree 200% with Everett because I have showed that Everett

should

have realize that the schroedinger equation is derivable aswell from

his own computationalist hypothesis.

Or you want to satisfy Substancial Occam Razor (SOR)

You insist for the unicity

of outcomes, and you SPECULATE about a collapse. It is well known that

this

introduces (at least for the realist philosopher) indeterminism,

non-locality

a cut between the observer and the observed, unintelligible micro-realm,

an insoluble measurement problem, etc.

This is a just an anthropomorphic cosmo-solipsistic move ...(IMO and in

the opinion of most people in this list if I understand them correctly).

Now if you take computationnalism (look in the archive) then the

``worlds"

becames sort of dreams, and you can put any substances, including

any universes in the trash ... With computationalism COR meet SOR !

Of course, then you *must* derive schroedinger from comp ...

Bruno

Bruno MARCHAL Phone : +32 (0)2 650 27 11

Universite Libre Fax : +32 (0)2 650 27 15

de Bruxelles

Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 IRIDIA, CP 194/6

B-1050 BRUSSELS Email : marchal.domain.name.hidden

Belgium URL : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal

Received on Fri Sep 15 2000 - 07:54:20 PDT

Date: Fri Sep 15 07:54:20 2000

Howard Marks wrote:

To be short I simplify the things just a little bit. I think

most in this list (and Deutsch list) would essentially agree.

Either you want to satisfy *Conceptual* Occam Razor (COR)

Then you choose to formulate QM with schroedinger equation only (+ the

math)

Then you have not only a shorter theory, but you get a

deterministic, local, complete, realist and

democratic (i.e. the observer obeys the same laws as the observed) theory,

without any measurement problem. Of course, you loose the principle of

unicity of measurement outcomes, superposition is contagious, and you get

the MW. It is not a choice.

BTW the expression MWI is misleading. Everett gives a new *formulation* of

QM from which he extracts the interpretation. I know this is controversial

but I agree 100% with Everett. (More on this latter if I find time).

In fact I agree 200% with Everett because I have showed that Everett

should

have realize that the schroedinger equation is derivable aswell from

his own computationalist hypothesis.

Or you want to satisfy Substancial Occam Razor (SOR)

You insist for the unicity

of outcomes, and you SPECULATE about a collapse. It is well known that

this

introduces (at least for the realist philosopher) indeterminism,

non-locality

a cut between the observer and the observed, unintelligible micro-realm,

an insoluble measurement problem, etc.

This is a just an anthropomorphic cosmo-solipsistic move ...(IMO and in

the opinion of most people in this list if I understand them correctly).

Now if you take computationnalism (look in the archive) then the

``worlds"

becames sort of dreams, and you can put any substances, including

any universes in the trash ... With computationalism COR meet SOR !

Of course, then you *must* derive schroedinger from comp ...

Bruno

Bruno MARCHAL Phone : +32 (0)2 650 27 11

Universite Libre Fax : +32 (0)2 650 27 15

de Bruxelles

Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50 IRIDIA, CP 194/6

B-1050 BRUSSELS Email : marchal.domain.name.hidden

Belgium URL : http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal

Received on Fri Sep 15 2000 - 07:54:20 PDT

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