Re: subjective reality

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:17 +0200

On 31 Aug 2005, at 17:52, wrote:

>> Brent MeekerWhy do you think YD is inconsistent with QM?
> Hi Brent,
> At this stage of the argument I feel like answering: because Bruno
> thinks so!

Just to be clear: comp gives the comp-correct physics, and from what
can be qualitatively and/or quantitatively already be derived, YD is
inconsistent with SWE + collapse. I guess you mean QM = Copenhagen QM.

> As I stated before I believe it is not difficult to imagine a
> situation in which you can falsify, by a non-local quantum
> mechanical experiment the type of hypothesis that Bruno calls YD,
> meaning one scenario in which all your experience
> (by which I mean what I describe above) is, at some point in your
> life, replaced by a suitably programmed digital
> computer.

But YD entails much stronger form of non-locality! As, a priori, YD
entails very strong form of non-locality. Proof: see the UDA in my URL.

> Bruno states that he actually knows this to be the case that is the
> reason I have not given myself the
> trouble to try and sharpen up the argument. But I am quite
> confident that this can be done with a bit of patience
> and the help of the many wonders of quantum states.

No. If comp contradicts physics, it will be so by comp being much
more non-local and much more non-deterministic (from the observers
viewpoints). The mystery is that with comp physics could appears so
much computational. Remember that if comp is true, whatever the
physical universe appears to be it cannot be the output of a
computation, nor can it be the result of a turing emulation other
than a UD. Only the taking into account of incompleteness show that
comp cannot be obviously false, as it could seem to be when you
understand the hugeness of indeterminacy and non-locality it implies.

remember also that comp (and thus YD ) is not incompatible with my
brain being a quantum computer. Reason: quantum computer are
classically emulable.

You should read the proof, I think you have not yet grasped the
enunciation of the result. It is all normal given the novelty. What
seems to me to be less normal is that you don't want to read it and
still want to say something.

Received on Thu Sep 01 2005 - 08:52:18 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST