On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:48:20 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this > day - assumptions built in at the start. It's like, local realism - a > reasonable assumed universal. But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism > means locality as we perceive, and classically seems to be. In; these > dimensions. But what happens when science transforms through a major > generalization? The hallmark is that not only theories get merged, broken > up, such that everything looks different. But that the revolution stretchs > right out to the conceptual framework itself...the basic concepts that are > upfront necessary to be shared, for basic communication to take place. It's > all concepts broken apart, while others merged together. We can put some > faith in local realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't > about that yet..we don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific > known. It isn't. In fact everything is against that. > > There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are > duplicated "as is" between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need > to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. > Daft in other words. > > When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial > that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened > without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the > wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple > assumptions only none of them things like local realism. > > They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory > structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing > progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory > structure alone. > > MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only > the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - > character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what > it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken > seriously at all. MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without > reference to quantum strangeness,, and restorations to classical > determinism. > > It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that > the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, hard tied to the > complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. What a joke. The > harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory sterile for all time, > placed all around the boundaries beyond the frontiers of science, that can > never be discoverex, never be passed through, never be built over, or > under. It's an act of murder of the human and scientific dreams > present company excepted of course :0
-- 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.
