<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear Koichiro, dear John and Colleagues,<div><br></div><div>I bump this older post, as it is related to my recent post to Lou.</div><div><br><div><div>On 27 Nov 2015, at 02:06, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="JA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); ">At 4:28 AM 11/27/2015, John C. wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-CA">A paper by my former graduate advisor, Jeff Bub, who was a student of David Bohm’s.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/11/7374" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/11/7374</a><o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><b><span lang="EN-CA">The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-Theoretic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0mm; margin-right: 0mm; margin-left: 0mm; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> Yes, Bub’s insistence on the absolute randomness would remain invincible as far as third-person probabilities are taken for granted from the outset in comprehending what messages would QM convey to us. On the other hand, once one may happen to feel at ease with the first-person probabilities (see, for instance, James Hartle’s “Living in a superposition”<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://arXiv.org/abs/1511.01550" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">http://arXiv.org/abs/1511.01550</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>), the first-person probability of the occurrence of such an agent assuming the first-person status would come to approach unity even within the framework of the decoherent-histories interpretation of QM. </span></div></div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think I agree (modulo some possible ambiguity perhaps).</div><div><br></div><div>If we take seriously that we might not be more than relative universal machine ourself, this extends in the "decoherent-histories" internal (made by the universal numbers) interpretation of Arithmetic.</div><div>I discovered the first person arithmetical probabilities before knowing anything about quantum mechanics. It is still possible that the arithmetical possibilities does not interfere like they should, but that is shown to be testable.</div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I don't think that a third person indeterminacy makes "interesting sense". Like Einstein, I tend to think that God does not play dice, and that there is no spooky action at a distance (but that too has not yet been derived completely from computationalism, to be sure).</div><div><br></div><div>This is my second post of the week.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno</div><div><br></div></div><br><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></body></html>