On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/20/2015 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a >> Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emerge. >> > >> >> So which interpretation do you prefer? Presumably one that takes the >> math less seriously. >> >> >> The point is to not prefer one but to wait for more evidence or better >> theories. Science, unlike practical pursuits, doesn't require a decision. >> > > Ok. My worry here is if some theories are taken as more definitive than > others based only on a matter of personal opinion. Or, put another way, if > when to take the math more or less serious comes from arguments from > authority. > > If you are an extreme agnostic and always doubt, no matter the theory, > than I have no problem. > > > I don't think it's extreme agnosticism to doubt an implication of some > equation that is not very well defined and has not been tested. The point > is that Everett's interpretation has to assume that small off diagonal > terms in the density matrix imply small probabilities. But to make that > align with experiment requires choosing the right basis for the density > matrix. So far the only theory for doing that is einselection (due to > Zurek) which implicitly assumes the probability interpretation. So, while > it's consistent, it may also be circular. > Ok, that's an interesting point. Can you provide some intuition on how remarkable it is anyway that it is possible to choose a basis such that the small probabilities assumption aligns with experimental results? > > I'm similarly dubious of black holes, even though they are clearly implied > by our best theory of spacetime. But that theory is incompatible with QM > and so BHs may not exist in the form implied by GR. > But the MWI has not be shown to be incompatible with any of our main theories so far, right? It's perhaps just a matter of having to assume a lot, as you say above. The interesting thing here, I think, is that this exposes an impossibility in being free from personal belief. Is it assuming many worlds a bigger assumption or is it assuming a single world? It seems that I am biased towards the latter and you towards the former, and none of use can really make a compelling argument that can settle the issue. I would argue that the history of science tells us that humans tend to err on the side of assuming too much uniqueness in what they observe. Telmo. > > 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.
