On 5/9/2013 9:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
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 only thing "compelling" about it is that it avoids randomness (by hiding the
determinism where it can't be seen). That's why I keep hoping for some testable
prediction from these theories - that would be compelling.
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 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.