ok thanks HF for the clarification. I didnt realize
all the recent threads on tegmark were also referring
to a tegmark-wheeler article.

fyi, here is the quote from gribbin. I havent noticed,
but is everyone aware of this book? good stuff.. from 1984,
a bit dated, but it keeps getting reprinted apparently
because its so superb. gribbin is a big advocate of MWI in
a later chapter & cites a lot of early science fiction ideas
relating to it. he's got a phd in astrophysics. very good
on the conceptual history/foundations of QM. 

>perhaps it is only fair, at this point,
>to mention that wheeler himself has recently expressed
>doubts about the whole business. in response to a questioner
>at a symposium held to mark the centenary of einstein's birth,
>he said of the MWI, "I confess that I have reluctantly
>had to give up my support of that POV in the end,
>much as I advocated it in the beginning--because I m
>afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage."
>this shouldnt be read as pulling out the rug from under
>the everett interpretation; the fact that einstein changed
>his mind about the statistical basis of QM didnt pull
>the rug from under that interpretation.

as for your point in your post about wheeler attaching
his name to the theory, I think its ok for proponents
and not originators of a theory to be named along with it.
for example lately Ive been referring to the
fredkin-wolfram thesis. fredkin is far more the 
originator; wolfram is far more the proponent. seems
to me the everett-wheeler theory can be fairly seen in the
same way.

btw, I recently finished deutschs "fabric of reality"
which imho is really outlandish & unfocused in places.
after reading it I thought he earned the nickname
"mad scientist" heh heh

Reply via email to