On 25 Feb 2015, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:

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 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.

First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"!

Not exactly. FPI entails that a first person (plural) result of an experiment is non predictible (in principle unknowable) in a purely deterministic context, without involving something a priori unknowable (like with the non valid invocation to the God of the gap).

But "in principle unknowable" is something much larger and fuzzy than the FPI of the UDA, or the mathematical measure of the Arithmetical UDA (AUDA, the machine's interview in sane04).

So:
FPI -> unknowable in principle (without magic)
unknowable in principle (with or without magic) does not imply FPI

Bruno




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.

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.

Reply via email to