Re: Kaboom

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:55:54 -0400

Bruno,

  I don't quite follow Colin's objections to your derivation but since
you
 mention me here I have to point out that he clearly read a lot more
 of it than I ever did. So you are being unfair in comparing us in this.
 He also appears a lot more annoyed with you than I am...


 Godfrey Kurtz
 (New Brunswick, NJ)

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
 To: chales1.domain.name.hidden
 Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
 Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:21:03 +0200
 Subject: Re: Kaboom


 On 30 Aug 2005, at 05:53, chales1.domain.name.hidden wrote:


 [BM]
  As Russell point out to Godfrey, it is important to distinguish sort
of constructive physicalism a-la-Schmidhuber, where the physical
universe is a computational object and comp where there is no physical
universe at all. from this I can conclude you are not reading the posts
(still less my papers), and you are fighting an idea you have build
from comp.

 [GK]
  Since you referred me to John Preskill's delightful lectures on
quantum computation I figured I may quote you a little jewel
  I found in there which, though obviously mistaken in terminology, is
quite relevant to this point and others you have raised.

  About the Measurement Problem (chapt3, pg.50) Preskill points out that
"There are at least two schools of thought:

  "Platonic": Physics describes reality. In quantum theory "the wave
function of the universe" is a complete description
 of physical reality"

  "Positivist": Physics describes our perceptions. The wave function
encodes our state of knowledge, and the task of
  quantum theory is to make the best possible predictions about the
future, given our current state of knowledge. "

 The he goes on to defend his choice of the first school:
  "I believe in reality. My reason, I think, is a pragmatic one. As a
physicist I seek the most economical model that
 explains what I perceive. etc..." (you can read the rest...)

  Platonists and positivists would certainly scream at this description
of their views but I think
  it shows is that even the staunchest defenders of the Everett
interpretation think that by embracing it they
  are embracing "reality" by which they mean the Physical Reality that,
you claim, does not exist ! To me this
  suggests again that you have a very crooked view of MWI if you think
it supports you in any way...

 Godfrey







________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Tue Aug 30 2005 - 12:58:30 PDT