On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 3:40:18 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Mar 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: > > > 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. > > In my opinion, Gleason theorem solves this problem for the case of QM. > And if the Zs logic verifies some quite plausible conjecture, the case > of comp is reduced to the case of QM. > This is a technical point, 'course. > > But even if such solutions did not exist, the MWI remains > understandable, which is not the case for QM+collapse.
Is this how Science works Bruno? That a theory is good even when it fails tests deriving from other scientific and/or mathematical domains, or sub-components thereof, regarded at the high end of reliability, based on the accumulation of different, mutually independent, tests devised and passed? If that isn't a falsifiable event, then what is? Are you saying, the only event that really matters, is what is the best explanation currently available? That is totally contradicted, by the entirety of scientific history in terms of what actually happens you realize? So in that case....are you saying - like Popper, like Deutsch - the fact of that is all wrong or irrelevant and nothing to do with Real Science, which is all about throwing explanations regardless of quality everywhere a gap is spotted, if there's more than one, performing some amazingly rational and dispassionate fireplace discussion wearing crushed velvet jackets and smoking pipes, the way the best friends do the Friday evening the Time Traveller vanishes into time, and the Friday after he shoes up covered in lipsticky lovebites clutching a dodgy flower. Is that how you're defining science? Because you do seem to be neglecting falsification - any practical possibility of it. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
