Re: subjective reality

From: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:44:53 -0400

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Bruno Marchal <>
 Sent: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:47:17 +0200
 Subject: Re: subjective reality

 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

  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.

  What are you talking about!? Much stronger form of non-locality? By
what measure? If that was the case than YD would
 be false by an even bigger measure!!!

> 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.

  But isn't your UD a turing emulation? Any "hugeness" of indeterminancy
and non-locality would only show that it is
  obviously false! Only the exact amount of indeterminancy and
non-locality would sugget that it may not be "obviously wrong".
  Non-locality is a non-additive property, not a big pot from which you
just take what you need!!!

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

  But that does not much help you either if your brain produces
correlations that are other than EPR! Than it is NOT a
 quantum computer either!!!

  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.


  I guess you are right. I think I am more confused about what you are
saying than when we started this exchange.


Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Thu Sep 01 2005 - 11:57:34 PDT

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