On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> 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) ? > It adds nothing to number 3, and if there were a explanation of indeterminate changes, if there were a reason they did what they did, then they wouldn't be indeterminate. And # 5 is the same as number # 2. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.