Le 17-nov.-05, à 12:40, Brian Scurfield concluded :
>
> OK, I see what you are getting at here, but as you pointed out later
> in your post the problem is that "junk" can be consistent! You want to
> "throw away" the junk by showing it has zero measure without a-priori
> assuming some kind of casual structure based on the continuum.
Exactly. Except I gave an argument that IF the comp hyp. is assumed to
be correct, THEN we *have to* justify that the junk has measure zero
(not just wanting). If we show the junk has a different measure, then
we would refute comp. (Grosso modo: it is the content of the Universal
Dovetailer Argument + movie graph/olympia = first half of my thesis).
> Information flow would then be an emergent property of the consistent
> histories you are left with.
Exactly. Except you can change the "would-be" into a "is". That's the
second half of my thesis, although it is yet an open problem to see if
I got there the right (empirically) information flow. But I get enough
for retrieving a non trivial notion of quantization explaining why the
shape of appearance is necessarily dynamical and non boolean. I hope to
show it being 100% reversible (Newton lesson) and non generally
clonable (Einstein Podolski Rosen lesson).
Well, actually I hope it will gives the qubits.
I am not contesting the Everett-Hartle-... Deutsch-Zurek explanation of
how bits come from qubits. Just saying comp gives a path from bits to
qubits too. A double path.
It is the incompleteness phenomenon(*) which makes that path double,
i.e. separated into a communicable part and a non communicable part
explaining simultaneously quanta and qualia (I would argue).
Bruno
(*) captured by the set difference between the modal logics G* and G,
as I try to explain on the everything-list.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Nov 18 2005 - 10:08:56 PST