LizR wrote:
On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem
to have done well with it for a century. If you can accept
randomness due to ignorance which can never be informed, why not
inherent randomness.
It is of course possible that the universe works on "oracles" like this,
this is just my personal bias towards explanations that don't require
infinite amounts of "in-principle unknowable" data to be injected into
physics. But I admit I could be wrong to have that bias.
You must have difficulty with quantum mechanics, then. QM is built on a
lot of "in-principle unknowable" data. Hidden variable theories of QM do
not really work, so that in radioactive decay, for instance, the time of
any particular decay, and whatever it might be that caused that nucleus
to decay now rather than at some other time, is "in-principle unknowable".
MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable".
Bruce
--
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.
