On 16 December 2013 11:16, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 2:53 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 16 December 2013 05:04, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>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 indeterminacy. >>>> 2) Turing form of indeterminacy (example: the halting problem), that >>>> is again a 3p indeterminacy. >>>> 3) quantum indeterminacy in copenhague (3p indeterminacy, if that >>>> exists) >>>> 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 >>> unnecessary. >>> >> >> What doesn't make sense about number 4 (the MWI explanation of >> indeterminacy) ? >> > > If he admits that his jig is up. >
Far be it from me to be an *agent provocateur...* : D -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
