On Sunday, March 9, 2014 6:32:08 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 3/9/2014 12:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:16, meekerdb wrote: > > On 3/7/2014 8:26 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 8 March 2014 08:14, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > > On 3/7/2014 1:24 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 7 March 2014 18:29, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > > On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? > Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI? > > > *Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness? * > > > > If one assumes QM and the MWI are correct then it isn't pretending, > > True; but I don't assume that. > > > Since your original statement above only makes sense in some context - > which you haven't revealed, as far as I can tell - perhaps you could tell > us what you *are* assuming? > > > I'm not assuming anything, I'm just pointing out that one could assume > something different than QM and MWI. For instance, start with MWI but then > suppose that at each "branching" only one instance of you continues. > Doesn't that accord with all experience? > > > Like Ptolemeaus epicycles. The point is to accord with the simplest > theories we have for most if not all experiences, like QM, or > computationalism. > > At each "branching" only one instance of you continue, you say, but that > does not accord well with the simplest explanation of the two slits > experience. You will have to explain why the superpositions act in the > micro and not the macro, and this needs big changes in QM (= SWE), or even > bigger to computationalism. > > > But you have to explain this anyway; except the question is transformed > into why do I only experience one reality. Presumably the answer is in > decoherence and the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix becoming very > small (or maybe even zero). Once you have this answer then you can look at > the density matrix, as Omnes does, and say, "QM is a probabilistic theory, > so it predicts probabilities. What did you expect?" > > My point is that these sharp questions are asked of QM because it is a > mature theory with lots of very accurate predictions, but "comp" as a new > speculative theory kind of gets a free ride
hear hear. And MWI. -- 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/d/optout.
