> What problem is that? I don't understand why randomness is a bigger physical > problem than determinism, both cuckoo clocks and roulette wheels coexist > peacefully in our world.
Roulette wheels are not random, they can be modeled as Newtonian mechanisms, exactly like cuckoo clocks. They have just been designed in a way to make prediction of the outcome very hard for humans (because one would have to know the precise force with which the roulette was spinned, the precise moment when the ball was dropped, and so on and so on). This is different from the kind of randomness that you get from the double-slit experiment. We had never met true randomness before the experiments that lead to QM, which are rather new in human experience. That is weird. You can accept that true randomness is fundamental, and thus, not explainable, but the MWI and Bruno's FPI provide a compelling contrary hypothesis. The scientific thing to do is to consider well defined hypothesis that could explain something that we have no explanation for at the moment. Right? -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
