On 12/11/2012 9:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

    On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:

    On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

    On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

                And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum
                Mechanics among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And 

            That's not an interpretation at all.

            Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes.  His view 
            that once you can explain the diagonalization of the the density 
            (either by eigenselection, dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) 
            you have predicted probabilities.  QM is a probabilistic theory - so
            predicting probabilities is all you can ask of it.

        Is science just about its applications or about understanding the 
world?  I
        would argue that science would not progress so far as it has if we 
        finding the equation was the be all and end all of science.  The "shut 
        and calculate" mindset can be translated as "don't ask embarrassing
        questions", it is the antithesis of scientific thinking.

        Student in the 1500s: Does the earth move about the sun, or do the 
        merely appear to move as if earth moved about the sun?
        Professor in the 1500s: We have all the formulas for predicting 
        motion, so shut up and calculate!

        Fortunately, Copernicus wasn't satisfied with that answer.

        So what's your objection to Omnes?  That the world just can't be
        probabilistic?  So instead there must be infinitely many inaccessible 
        - which happen to mimic a probabilistic world.

    It is fine if QM is a probabilistic theory.  Where I disagree with him is 
in his
    belief that we can never go beyond that in our understanding of it.  I am 
    sure how accurate this statement is, since it is a secondary source, but
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Omn%C3%A8s says: "We will never, Omn├Ęs
    believes, find a common sense interpretation of quantum law itself."  To 
me, it
    almost seems as if he says it is not worth trying to find an answer.  I lean
    more towards David Deutsch who says science is about finding good 

    Omnes is very special. His many books gives the best account and defense of 
    MWI, except that in the last paragraph, or chapter, he insist that we have 
to be
    irrational, in fine, and select one reality. This is really 
cosmo-solipsism, and
    makes QM indeed no more rational at all.

    What's not rational about it?  I think 'rational' just means 'being able to 
    coherent reasons'.  There's a perfectly good coherent reason for 
'selecting' one
    reality - we experience one reality.

    But there is no reason to extrapolate from this. We experience a flat 
earth, we see
    the Sun turning around Earth, we feel the need of force to keep the same 
speed, etc.

    And all those inferences were perfectly rational.  The fact that later, more
    comprehensive theories were found doesn't change that.   Rational is not 
the same as
    'always right'.

    Usually when we refer to experience we are wrong

    We're not wrong about the experience, although we may be wrong about it's

    (and from this some extrapolate wrongly that we cannot mention experience in
    experiment ...).

    Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something 
    mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from theories already 

    I agree.  But the model of reality we build should comport with experience. 
    don't experience many worlds, so a valid model must include that.

We don't (in this present) experience our conscious state of 5 minutes ago. Would you reject the idea that "the universe is a 4-dimensional static structure with no objective present" on this basis?

No, but I would expect a theory of conscious experience to include that.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to