Re: Implications of MWI

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:17:05 +0200

Le 29-avr.-05, à 00:41, Russell Standish a écrit :

> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:00:10PM -0400, John M wrote:
>> Jesse, thanks for the explanation you gave to Norman. I did not want
>> to ask
>> something similar, so I benefit from it as well.
>> My question however is a more fundamental one:
>> why are we stuck in a MWI or its infinitely expanded format, where
>> qualia,
>> systems, functions, ideation, whatever are unrestricted and maybe
>> quite
>> different from ours here, CORNERED into a time-concept of this (our)
>> feeble
>> little universe?
>> Same to all principles expresed amply about dimensions, comp, space,
>> Q-considerations, even reality and ourselves?
> The reason for TIME is the need for a dimension in which to make
> comparisons, to measure differences. Computationalism (Bruno's working
> hypothesis implicitly assumes TIME).

If by TIME you mean the axiom in arithmetic saying that each natural
number has a successor then I agree.
If by TIME you mean anything related to geometry, or real numbers, or
physics, or psychology then I disagree.

> With TIME, the Anthropic Principle
> and PROJECTION (or equivalently Evolution or Bostrom's SSA), the
> quantum Multiverse is the only place observers can live. Apparently
> Bruno gets a similar result from a slightly different set of basic
> assumptions - I say apparently, because I haven't understood the last
> part of his argument, the bit about Thaetetus's model of
> knowledge. But I will be looking back at his thesis soon - I find my
> ability to understand these arguments has improved over time :)

I'm open to any question. Don't hesitate. Thanks for your interest. The
Theaetetus in on the net at many places.

Received on Fri Apr 29 2005 - 02:22:15 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST