Consciousness as an active part in modern physics

[fuzzyfelt]

Hi,
I've read this, and you're links, and have been enjoying the 'why not knowledge' thread. I didn't want to interrupt that thread, but as my eyes are hurting too much to re-read again, and I'm not sure if I am following precisely, I wonder if you wouldn't mind clarifying a couple of things for me. Firstly, are you talking more about a many minds idea than many worlds interpretation, in both this and the other thread? It strikes me that you are with how you talk about perception. The second question is probably ridiculous, but, could a different way of looking at either many worlds or minds be- giving time extra co-ordinates?

 

[vanesch]

Firstly, are you talking more about a many minds idea than many worlds interpretation, in both this and the other thread?

I never could really figure out what's the difference ! What you have, in all these different "flavors" is that the quantum state of the world has your bodystate entangled with other stuff, and "you" are clearly only aware of only one of these states. In fact, if you didn't state this, I would presume that you are aware of your *entire* bodystate (distributed over all those terms), and that you would have a kind of mega-quantum experience (experiencing all those different states "at once").
So I don't see how one can talk about a "many worlds" interpretation without having "many minds", or at least one mind, attached to one term, which is yours. The entire discussion is then on how to link the different states to a "probability for it to be YOUR state". When we say "many worlds" or "many minds" it seems almost implicitly that they have to be counted, and that you are "one of them" with equal probability.
And the problem is that these wordings give the view a much more mystical sound than it is actually meant to be (at least, for me).

The original name, "relative state interpretation", seems to be much more free from all these extra considerations.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thank you, I was probably mistaken, thinking the difference between them was that the many minds interpretation (forgive my simple terminology) split the one mind into, firstly, a (or many) subjective reciever(s) of quantum information, which in recieving- entangling, allowing, secondly, the other part of the mind to objectively percieve classicism. The difference being this subjective recieving/objective percieving split. I realize there is a lot more to the whole hypothesis than concerning this little point, regardless!
I see that the terms are terrribly confusing, I hope I haven't read anything mystical into it, and I do see that my second question was, as expected, ridiculous.
'Relative state interpretation' does seem clearer, I guess, yet I haven't figured out how it is relative!
Thanks again for your help.