On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 December 2013 05:04, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> > As I said you confuse "indeterminacy" (the general vague concept) with
>>> the many different sort of indeterminacy:
>>> 1) by ignorance on initial conditions (example: the coin), that is a 3p
>>> 2) Turing form of indeterminacy (example: the halting problem), that is
>>> again a 3p indeterminacy.
>>> 3) quantum indeterminacy in copenhague (3p indeterminacy, if that
>>> 4) quantum indeterminacy in Everett (1p indeterminacy, which needs the
>>> quantum SWE assumption)
>>> 5) computationalist 1p-indeterminacy (similar to Everett, except that
>>> it does not need to assume the SWE or Everett-QM). It is the one we get
>>> in step 3, and it is part of the derivation of physics from comp.
>> Only the first 3 make any sense, and even there all those peas are
> What doesn't make sense about number 4 (the MWI explanation of
> indeterminacy) ?
If he admits that his jig is up.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.