On 3/26/2014 8:14 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 March 2014 15:36, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[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.
I don't think you can infer anything about gender preference for "triple or bust" vs "maintain what we've got" from evolutionary biology. Kent's idea would be to look around and see whether people were overwhelmingly type A or type B. If MWI is true they should be type B, if false type A. There shouldn't be any split along gender line.
Brent -- 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.
