On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 3:53 PM, LizR <[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) ? > 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 [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.
