On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/26/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote: > > I've read Mr Kent's paper, or most of it (I'm afraid with limited time I > skipped a few bits that seemed incoherent to my fuzzy brain at least) and I > have to admit it didn't appear to say anything for or against the MWI > except that (a) he obviously doesn't like it, and (b) some people have > apparently misunderstood some of its implications (or perhaps (c) > *nobody*understands its implications, which would put it in the same position > quantum theory was in for at least its first 50 years, though without the > experimental successes to bolster belief that it's correct). > > His proposed test doesn't strike me as terribly useful, if only because he > seems to have roughly approximated the reproductive strategies of (most) > male and female animals that care for their young - the males tend to > follow the "tripe or bust" strategy, the females the "slow and steady" one, > for reasons that I believe are obvious to any evolutionary biologist. > > > It's not obvious to me. Did you take a poll to support your guess? > > No, I just read a lot of books on evolutionary biology.
-- 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.
