On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote: > >> >> But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's >> Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories? >> > > Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced > that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the > hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy > "everythingism". > > Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. There is no "fuzzing over" involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to "fuzz things over" if you want to get "this" out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a "fuzzy" hand-waving exercise.
I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. *No one *thinks the MWI is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it *may* be a good approximation (or it may not, of course). *If* it's a good approximation, it solves the problem of "why this history?" without resorting to any extra doodads on top of the basic equations. Or so I'm told. AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it "just comes out this way" or you have to use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you have a third type of explanation, please tell me! Otherwise you're just saying "I don't like it, so it can't be true!" -- 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.
