Re: Rucker's Infinity, Tegmark's TOE, and Cantor'sAbsoluteInfinity

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:00:14 +0200

Hi Brent,


> > Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> >> BreMe:
> >> Bohm's QM is empirically identical with non-relativistic
>>> Schroedinger QM - makes exactly the same predictions. So
>>> what does it have to do with AI and the duplication of
>>> brains?
>
> >BruMa:
> > We (John + me) were refering to Bohm's book "the implicate
>> order" where Bohm takes some non comp stand.
>
>> Also his interpretation of QM is contradictory with comp, in
>> the sense than he does not attribute consciousness to the
>> people in the other branches,
>
>BreMe: But in BQM there are no "other branches". The world is
>completely deterministic. The apparent randomness is just a
>reflection of our incomplete knowledge of the universal
>psi-function.


BruMa:
I disagree: in Bohm QM there *are* other branches. This follows
from the fact that there is no collapse. The SWE is obeyed.
Bohm just add a potential which forces a (mysterious) set
of particles with very special initial conditions to follow
one branch of the universal superpositions. But to explain
the interference Bohm accepts the existence of the other branches
even if they are lacking particles. And to explain the behavior
of a quantum computer even in just "our" branch, a Bohmian must
accept that the computers of the other branches are able to make
reasoning like any AI, even if they lacks particles. So Bohm
is forced to abandon comp, as he does. (This illustrates also that
existence of particles is hardly necessary with comp).

Bruno
Received on Mon Sep 09 2002 - 02:03:30 PDT