Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The wave function does not "seem to collapse" (Was: My hist

Expand Messages
  • Marchal
    ... Yes that is what I call appearance (of unicity of me, of outcomes, ...) ... Yes but for making that explicitely communicable ( scientific ), at some
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      David Deutsch wrote:

      >There's a commonsense theory of what the effect of copies of oneself coming
      >into existence in a parallel universe (or identical parallel copies of
      >oneself becoming different) would be, namely, that it would be Imperceptible
      >(i.e. feel the same as if there were only one copy). This commonsense theory
      >is true.


      Yes that is what I call "appearance" (of unicity of me, of outcomes, ...)


      >To make the parallel universes theory tenable, no analogous explanation is
      >required over and above that which is necessary to explain quantum
      >phenomena: the commonsense theory of how that would feel is true.

      Yes but for making that explicitely communicable ("scientific"), at some
      point we need a theory of common sense. A lot of thought experiment needs
      only grandmother/folk/common sense for understanding what happens, but
      the result is so weird (at least for people patient enough to follow the
      details of the reasoning) that at some point it makes things clearer to
      substitute grandmother by computer self-reference theory.


      >The wave function does not seem to collapse.

      It certainly seems to collapse in the (weak) sense that if I look
      to a photon in the state (a + b) I put myself in the state
      O_a a + O_b b, but I don't feel myself in that state. True: common
      sense explains what happens, I can only feel to be 0_a or feel to be
      O_b, because O has only access to a definite memory (a or b).
      So I feel the other "universe" being inaccessible, and that is what
      I call "appearance of collapse". Nothing magical here, but still, to
      understand better we need to explain a little more about common sense.
      That's where the mind theory is needed, explaining where the
      probabilities of experiment results come from.

      I agree with you about the limit of the Keplerian analogy, still we
      need a justification of the adequacy of common sense and QM, and comp
      works very well there (so well that it looks we will get above a
      free justification of the SWE!).

      Bruno
    • june.shippey@ntlworld.com
      ... Common sense told us that the Earth was flat and the centre of everything, And besides I thought everyone knew COMMON SENSE AINT SO COMMON! :)
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Marchal wrote:
        >
        > David Deutsch wrote:
        >
        > >There's a commonsense theory of what the effect of copies of oneself coming
        > >into existence in a parallel universe (or identical parallel copies of
        > >oneself becoming different) would be, namely, that it would be Imperceptible
        > >(i.e. feel the same as if there were only one copy). This commonsense theory
        > >is true.
        >
        > Yes that is what I call "appearance" (of unicity of me, of outcomes, ...)
        >
        > >To make the parallel universes theory tenable, no analogous explanation is
        > >required over and above that which is necessary to explain quantum
        > >phenomena: the commonsense theory of how that would feel is true.
        >
        > Yes but for making that explicitely communicable ("scientific"), at some
        > point we need a theory of common sense. A lot of thought experiment needs
        > only grandmother/folk/common sense for understanding what happens, but
        > the result is so weird (at least for people patient enough to follow the
        > details of the reasoning) that at some point it makes things clearer to
        > substitute grandmother by computer self-reference theory.
        >
        > >The wave function does not seem to collapse.
        >
        > It certainly seems to collapse in the (weak) sense that if I look
        > to a photon in the state (a + b) I put myself in the state
        > O_a a + O_b b, but I don't feel myself in that state. True: common
        > sense explains what happens, I can only feel to be 0_a or feel to be
        > O_b, because O has only access to a definite memory (a or b).
        > So I feel the other "universe" being inaccessible, and that is what
        > I call "appearance of collapse". Nothing magical here, but still, to
        > understand better we need to explain a little more about common sense.
        > That's where the mind theory is needed, explaining where the
        > probabilities of experiment results come from.
        >
        > I agree with you about the limit of the Keplerian analogy, still we
        > need a justification of the adequacy of common sense and QM, and comp
        > works very well there (so well that it looks we will get above a
        > free justification of the SWE!).
        >
        > Bruno
        >
        >[GORDON]The Multiverse has been around long before you and me.In the past
        Common sense told us that the Earth was flat and the centre of
        everything,
        And besides I thought everyone knew COMMON SENSE AINT SO COMMON! :)
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.