The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting.
We got the classic intuition buster argument. You know, screw intuition because it evolved in the sub Saharan savannah to help us lob spears. God forbid that it evolved in sub Saharan society to help spot hogwash. Apart from the fact that he confuses Tau for intuition, even before QM and Relativity came along, intuition has never been the arbiter of right and wrong. There have always been counter intuitive facts, there is nothing new about the current situation. Theres no more reason to distrust intuition now that there has been before. Its only ever been a guide and as such should be trusted as much now as it ever was. And that was never entirely. Worst of all though was that I wanted to hear about his level 4 multiverse but he didn't address it except to comment that it was a little nutty. But really, in the world of QM interpretation barking mad is where things start. Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:05:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Max and FPI From: [email protected] To: [email protected] He's talking about the fact that you get about 50% 0s and 50% 1s ... as we were discussing recently. I trust this clears up any lingering doubts about what he meant by this. On 23 March 2014 18:50, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:27:13PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw > > Brent > Thanks for that. One thing that struck me was how ordinary the FPI argument (UDA step 3) seems when Max talks about it. But also how it generalises to unequal probabilities - which was the thrust of that paper we discussed here a couple of years ago - in generating the Born rule from counting arguments. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
