Re: Many Worlds

From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2001 - 12:13:26 MDT


From: "Reason" <reason@exratio.com>
> I shall have to sit down and think about that. The use of what basically
> seems to be information and processing power as a fundamental indestructible
> quantity akin to energy in this particular context is something else I'll
> have to sit down and think about.

Yes, if information is indestructible, then no one need lament the burning of
the Alexandrian library.

From: "Jerry Mitchell" <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
> Without getting into that argument about exact definitions... Id say this
> blows the hell out of Moore's law if its true ;)

According to Deutsch, "When you succeed, all the copies of you who made the
same decision succeed too. What you do for the better increases the portion of
the multiverse where good things happen." So, Moore's law works just fine, for
all the copies of Moore that made the same decision.

"This makes the choice between them purely a matter of taste,
roughly equivalent to whether one believes mathematical language or human
language
to be more fundamental." --Max Tegmark

The difficulty involved in putting that statement into mathematical language
persuades me of the more fundamental nature of human language. It's easier
(for me) to communicate the existence of Many Worlds in words than numbers.

"It is concluded that no plausible set of axioms exists for an MWI
that describes known physics." --Adrian Kent

IOW, even if MWI is correct, it doesn't really matter, since it changes
nothing in our tangible, everyday lives. That was the case with atomic theory
before the bomb.

"I shall show that the apparently 'non-local' expectation value for the
product of the spins of two widely separated particles --- the 'quantum' part
of Bell's Theorem --- is really due to a series
of three purely local measurements. Thus, experiments confirming 'nonlocality'
are actually
confirming the MWI." --Frank J. Tipler

Confirmation suffices for theory. Perhaps someday a sensational demonstration
will convince the rest of _this_ particular world, although many other worlds
are (according to MWI) already convinced.

"In single-history theories, each history is weighted simply by its
quantum-mechanical probability, but in many-worlds theories in which random
observations are considered, there should also be the weighting by the numbers
or amounts of observations occurring in each history." --Don N. Page

Right, for every "world" there must be an observer, and a "world" for every
observer (or collection of observers). This implies a relativistic consensus
reality in which observation creates existence (and Sartre be damned).

In reality there may be many worlds, but only one reality (aka, existence).


Stay hungry,

--J. R.

Useless hypotheses, etc.:
 consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, and ego.

     Everything that can happen has already happened, not just once,
     but an infinite number of times, and will continue to do so forever.
     (Everything that can happen = more than anyone can imagine.)

We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:56 MDT