On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM predict a infinite small
probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of
them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but
yours.
QM predict all this by using comp, or an unintelligible dualist
theory of observation.
I don't understand that. QM predicts a low probability for white
rabbits - but not by using comp, in fact it assumes a continuum.
Comp entails a continuum too. Everett uses comp to handle the quantum
"white rabbits", and is not aware of the arithmetical one (Everett is
still physicalist).
And comp doesn't entail QM.
Then QM is false, or comp is false, or we are in a normal simulation
(by our descendants or something). Up to now, comp does seem to imply
QM, with some technical nuances, as we get a credibility measure
instead of a probability, but it is quite quantum by the presence of
the arithmetical quantizations.
Bruno
Brent
--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
