Re: Y MWI?
- On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:25 AM, Bill Taylor wrote:
> Just some briefest responses to most of this:-This depends on who's right. The quoted sentence serves not to beg the
>>> Now, the thing about this conventional wisdom, is that it's wrong.
question, but to help express a position.
>This disagreement would be clearer with elaboration. Why is separating
>>> It isn't reasonable to separate the "interpretation" part from the
interpretation and math a good idea in physics? (Independent of
whether MWI is correct.)
>My statement means, "We have knowledge (about reality)." Do you
>>> it isn't reasonable to make up whatever imaginative picture you
>>> We know certain facts about what exists,
> Not really.
disagree with that? I'd love to hear why.
>A claim that we know "certain" facts and not "all" facts already
>>> and what doesn't,
implies that we only sometimes know what doesn't exist.
>Saying MWI barely expresses reality would technically concede the
>>> and one way of expressing them is mathematically.
>>> This knowledge can also be expressed in English.
point at issue -- MWI may only be barely good enough, but it is
However, the intended point appears to be to say that MWI's expression
of reality is bad. If so, that is a claim that could do with
elaboration of the flaws in MWI being alluded to.
>Whether it is "a" or "the" way is one of the things at issue, not a
>>> The way of doing so is called "the multiworlds interpretation".
> And BTW, it is *a* way, not *the* way.
mistake in the post.
-- Elliot Temple
- --- inntranz <inntranz@...> wrote:
> Regarding the use of the term computationalism in relation toPhysical reality as a whole is the quantum state according to the MWI. If
> physics, Chalmers' "hard problem" of consciousness is well known, but
> doesn't the MWI pose a similar "hard problem" about how physical
> reality can emerge from the quantum state?
> And is computationalism a possible answer to both?
> (Neither of these are rhetorical questions - I would really like to
you mean how do parallel universes emerge from the quantum state then the
answer to that is decoherence. Interference relies on the fact that the
particle doing the interference is in a state such that it exists in
multiple versions relative to the measuring apparatus until the end of the
experiment in the universe where the experiment is being done. If the
particle gets measured then in a particular universe it is present only in
the version that corresponds to the measuring result and so it can't
interfere. Large objects like people get measured on time scales much
shorter than the time scales over which they undergo significant change and
so we see little evidence of the existence of multiple versions of people
even though they must exist.
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com