On 1 April 2014 04:04, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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. 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. >
Are you saying that the fact that we don't see many worlds is evidence against many worlds? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
