LizR wrote:
On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seemto 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.
First person indeterminacy is just another name for "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.
