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

From: jamikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 23:40:00 -0400

Thanks, Bruno, I found your (beautiful) CC&Q paper.

About D.Bohm: in the paper you reference only
the Bohm-Hiley book. IMO this posthumus book draws
a rather one sided image of Bohm, almost entirely
omitting the great philosopher in favor of his (pre-1952?)
career. Yes, his UK professorship was as a physicist
(his (l)earned profession he excelled in indeed), but in
my mind his (natural) philosophical achievement is his
'signature' image. As you correctly remarked below:
we both appreciate the 'Implicate'-book - and also lots
of publications *about* his philosophy by others.

Of course he could not refer to ideas surfacing after his
death. His philosophical position was ahead of the time
he wrote his book but today it may serve as a historic
initiation. Start FROM his philosophy and step further.

Respectfully

John Mikes



( "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:00 AM
> Hi Brent,
> > > Brent Meeker wrote:
> > >> 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 Wed Sep 11 2002 - 20:42:02 PDT