Hi Bruno >> The question is: can you refute this.
To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be refuted? >> And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the >> indeterminacy, and its invariance for the changes described in the next >> steps. By your own admission your steps are dumbed down for morons like me and display a lack of rigour. Perhaps your book might help? If I don't buy my little 2 year old a treat this month maybe I can afford it. Are there an awful lot of sums? I hate sums. Well its your call Bruno, should I treat my son or buy your book? >> What is you talk about the step 4? It asks if the way to evaluate the P(W) >> and the P(M) changes if some delay of reconstitution is introduced in W, or >> in M. It doesn't change as far as I can see. Its still P(1) for both. I'll tell you what, I'll have another look at step 7. see if I can make head or tails of it the fifth or sixth time around....Last time I got stuck at the floating pen. Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:05:21 +1300 Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Brent, could you please reply to Edgar? He is, I'm sure, eagerly awaiting your response so he can unleash a torrent of carefully thought out arguments which will cover every point you've made. (As indeed am I.) On 1 March 2014 13:46, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: Brent, Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer. On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote: If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how it stacks up against Everett et al. But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'. On the contrary, I am interested in your theory of quantum randomness IF you can flesh it out. For example how do you describe a Stern-Gerlach experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an EPR experiment, Bose-Einstein condensate,...? -- 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. -- 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.
