Thanks for the link - very enjoyable talk. As far as I could follow
it, he seemed to be saying that the differentiation of decoherent
"worlds" is in the final analysis a "psychological" matter - i.e. that
quasi-classical "reality", as ordinarily experienced, is consequent on
the selection of particular "best-fit" or "most fruitful"
interpretations of functional or structural features of the underlying
micro-physical state-of-affairs. Whereas I did take to heart his
admonitions as to the differing explanatory priorities of physics and
philosophy, and particularly the centrality of functional explanations
to science in general, I was a bit troubled by the seeming assumption
that the requirement for such interpretation and selection just
"bottoms out", as it were, at the level of micro-physics (although he
did speculate at one point on the subject of "deeper" ontological
bases below this "substitution level"). I couldn't quite decide
whether he was actually "sweeping the 1st-person under the rug", in
Bruno's terms. He didn't address this aspect directly, but perhaps
this signals an implicit belief that micro-physical-functional, or
ontological/epistemological, elements must always play a dual role in
any intelligible account of our situation.
I wonder what you thought.
On 25 July 2011 05:05, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> I would like to recommend this video of a talk by David Wallace on the
> subject of Decoherence and Ontology in MWI. http://vimeo.com/5406821
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at