On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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". It seems to me that the MWI explains, in principle, where the data come from - from first person indeterminacy. That isn't the same as spontaneous generation of random data from nowhere. -- 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.
