On 24 Jul 2014, at 20:24, meekerdb 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.
It would be purely epistemic if it made not the universe disappearing.
But why postulate universe(s) at the start? We know only that there
are person(s), and some agreements on 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
