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. p246 >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