Re: My history or Peters??

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon Aug 27 02:16:48 2001

Gordon wrote:


>This whole idea smells like the CI program,they where the one's that put
>mind there in the first place even though no one called for it.And still
>even now People think that there have broken away from the Bohr Magic
>but they are still under it's spell! :O



Charles wrote also, about this:


>Ah, that's what all this computational stuff reminds me of! Of course. The
>idea that reality is somehow a 'machine dream' does sound
>rather like the idea that the observer 'collapses the wavefunction' ... !



I remind you that both Everett and Deutsch postulate comp. It seems to
me that, in their mind, it is a minimal "mind theory" quasi dispelling all
possible magic. Everett "mind theory" is "just" memory machine,
dynamical recorder, made possible in the QM/comp frame by decoherence,
which is just (with Everett-Deutsch) entanglement with the neighborhood.

You cannot deny that "apparently" there are wave collapses, and apparently
there is a useful probability calculus. Comp, or even
just the more general assumption that physicians does obey physical laws,
explains why from the observer point of view there is a collapse, without
needing to postulate a "physical" collapse. But then you need a minimal
theory
of the observer, the one who feel the probabilistic collapse apparence
and
who does NOT feel the split/differentiation!


Now, for my, I give an argument showing that with comp we must still
justify
in the same phenomenological way the Schroedinger Eq.

You know, through comp, mind theory is just computer science, especially
around diagonalisation and self-reference. The high non triviality of
that "machine psychology" gives hints toward the beginning of a solution.
The advantage here is that, thanks to the Godelian gap between (inferable)
truth and provability, we get an explanation (quasi-"at once") for both
physical experiences (private unsharable measure) and physical experiments
(relatively sharable measure).

We follow the galileo/einstein/everett relativity line here, embedding
in a deeper way the subject in the object. Thanks to Post,Turing, Godel
...
a new kind of *sharable* magic (sort of mathematical prestidigitation)
is available for explaining deep issue in mind/matter, subject/object,
first/third person views, controversies.

Of course many (many many) works remain to be done, before knowing
for exemple, if Planck constant is physical or geographical ...


Bruno
Received on Mon Aug 27 2001 - 02:16:48 PDT