On 3/31/2014 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Mar 2014, at 19:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/31/2014 12:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact
actually
not be.
But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things
taken
seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at
that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science
to date?
MWI evacuates all weirdness from QM. It restores fully
- determinacy
- locality
- physical realism
The price is not that big, as nature is used to multiplied things, like the water
molecules in the ocean, the stars in the sky, the galaxies, etc.
Each time, the humans are shocked by this, and Gordiano Bruno get burned for saying
that stars are other suns, and that they might have planets, with other living being.
It is humbling, but not coneptually new, especially for a computationalist, which
explains the MW from simple arithmetic, where you need only to believe in the
consequence of addition and multiplication of integers.
The price is not having a unified 'self' - which many people would consider a big price
since all observation and record keeping which is used to empirically test theories
assumes this unity.
Really?
If you observe X and you want to use that as empircal test of a theory it isn't helpful
if your theory of the instruments says they also recorded not-X.
It is helpful when it is part of the only theories which are working, like QM, or
arithmetic.
No it's not. It's reason the Born rule is needed and the source of the difficulty of
interpreting probability in MWI and the 'white rabbit problem' in comp.
We need only the unity of the first person self, from the first person self point of
view, and that is guarantied by the comp hypothesis.
Guarantee by definition doesn't mean much.
Ah! Brent, this list is called "everything" because it is open to the idea that
everything, or nothing, is simpler than any mono-thing.
I know why it's called that, but I assumed that I didn't have to be true believer to
participate.
I can understand that it is counter-intuitive, but the brain has not been programmed for
the big picture, so we can expect the possible truth to be shocking, it seems to me.
Alas, there is a temptation regard how shocking a theory is as evidence for it.
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.
