[ExI] QM Interpretations was Re: Shadows and the concept of self

[Giulio Prisco]

Thanks Stuart, your "computational interpretation is interesting." Pasting from a Medium comment thread about my essay:
"reminds me of Wheeler’s participatory universe hypothesis, where things become real “Just-in-Time” when somebody asks. Videogames provide an interesting analogy — it doesn’t make sense to waste resources to compute things that nobody can see or needs to know, so in modern videogames some features like mobs and NPCs are left in a limbo of possibilities and instantiated only when a player comes close. In this sense, I agree with you: I think quantum physics lends plausibility to the simulation hypothesis."

I tend to think that ALL currently discussed interpretation of QM are probably "wrong" and going to be superseded by future advances, but many current theories including Everett, De Broglie-Bohm, Cramer etc. point to actual aspects of "The Thing Itself" (Ding an Sich), whatever that is/

--
Giulio Prisco
https://giulioprisco.com/
giulioprisco at protonmail.ch

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ExI] QM Interpretations was Re: Shadows and the concept of self
Local Time: April 3, 2017 6:50 AM
UTC Time: April 3, 2017 4:50 AM
From: avant at sollegro.com
To: Exi Chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>

Giulio wrote:
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:59:22 +0200
> From: Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>

> The chaotic path of my quest to better understand fundamental quantum
> physics has taken me back to the ?many worlds? ideas of Hugh Everett & co.
> I?m republishing this related article that author Richard L. Miller and
> I
> wrote in 2005, with minor edits to fix typos...
>
> https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9

Interesting read, Guilio. I am still agnostic about MWI. While I agree
that Copenhagen is dead, there are a lot of other good interpretations out
there.

Perhaps even a new one that I will call the "computational intepretation"
of quantum mechanics which I could succinctly explain by pointing out that
a perfect simulation of a cat, whilst stored on a flash drive in someones
pocket is neither alive nor dead.

In other words perhaps, Schrodinger's cat is in superposition until you
observe it, because the universal machine does not call/process/execute
the object.cat.alive() property code until an observer opens the box. Just
like how in MMORPGs certain NPCs or events won't occur until they are
triggered by some action by the player. So wave-function collapse could be
synonymous with code execution in the "Great Simulation" regardless of
whether or not there is a simulator. Could just be the way the universe
works. But I am skeptical of the Simulation Argument because of the
experimentally meausred smoothness of space-time.

Of course there is also de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave theory which is another
real contender as is Kramer's Transactional Intepretation. So I am
agnostic of the various interpretation of QM even if you narrow it down to
just those which call for an objectively real wave function.

Stuart LaForge

"Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling
will spoil it." -Lao Tzu

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170403/09ee654a/attachment.html>