Thanks for posting, Brent. Fine topics to dig into when one takes the time.
And if we never take the time for these things, how can we ever expect to derive proper energetic eigenvalues for hydrogen like stuff in the wave we're surfing on, independent of distracting deadlines? The hard answer nobody wants to face is: we don't. And the result is we die as lesser men. For only idiots wait for the right wave, blinking in the sun. A proper surfer of the fundamental just goes when it's time, surfs that one right wave, and simultaneously leaves the idiots waiting for "the wave" in his wake... forever. Timeless cojones. Not even a contest. The gender ghost haunts this statement mumbling something about exclusion, but I just destroyed it before it could finish the sentence. No time for vain attention sinks or these kinds of silly ghosts. They will be crushed as they have dangerous property of propagating tedious boredom broadcast waves, a highly contagious, prevalent, virulent disease of our time. We shouldn't engage this nonsense; just kill it, walk away, and not bother to even contemplate looking back. The wave pushes forward regardless, and laughs at time's ridiculous routines and dead lines. Born (squared tude) again. PGC On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:24 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/24/2014 11:09 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 24 July 2014 18:40, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > This may clarify (or provoke) discussion of Moscow vs. Washington. It's >> interesting that Carroll and Sebens use FPI and Sean says it increases his >> confidence in Everett's MWI. But in his penultimate paragraph he >> essentially lays out an endorsement of Fuchs QBism, which is generally seen >> as the instrumentalist alternative to MWI. > > > Brent, could you possibly summarise what you see as the essential > distinction between the C&S and Fuchs alternatives "for dummies"? > > > I'd need to study C&S's paper a little, I just read Sean's blog summary. > But Fuch's quantum Bayesianism says that the collapse of the wave function > is just like the "collapse" of a classical probability distribution when we > learn the value of the random variable. It's purely epistemic. It's a > sort of instrumentalism. > > 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. > -- 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.
