On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I find most surprising about John's position is that he can use "I"
> in the same sense you mean in the UDA when referring to many-worlds thought
> experiments, but he refuses to use it in that same sense when it comes to
> duplication in the UDA.
After a experiment has been completed the Many World's Interpretation can
give some people, including me, a intuitive feel of what just happened, as
opposed to just crunching the numbers. However when it comes to prediction
Many Worlds is no better than Copenhagen and Copenhagen did come first; and
that's why Many Worlds is not the dominant explanation in the scientific
community, although it's popularity is increasing.
However Bruno in his pee pee proof claims to have discovered something new
about prediction but he is wrong about that. And to make matters worse
Bruno is pushing on a string, he's trying to establish a chain of identity
from the present to the future and that's never going to work, you've got
to do it from the present to the past. I don't know what my future identity
will be, maybe tomorrow I'll become a rodeo clown, maybe I'll be elected
Pope, maybe I'll be dead I just don't know, but I know who I was yesterday.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.