On 14 May 2015 at 12:32, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote: > > On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated, > > > therefore the MGA is invalid. > > > > > > > Can you elaborate on this? ISTM that counterfactuals aren't, and indeed > > can't, be physically instantiated. (Isn't that what being counterfactual > > means?!) > > No - counterfactual just means not in this universe. If its not in any > universe, then its not just counterfactual, but actually illogical, or > impossible, or something. > > > > > As I mentioned, a simple example is my decision between tea and coffee. > In > > the MWI (or an infinite universe) there are separate branches (or > > locations) in which I have both - but in the branch where I had tea, I > > didn't have coffee, and vice versa. And because those branches can't > > communicate, the road not taken remains counterfactual and non-physical > > within each branch. Isn't that enough for the MGA to not need to worry > > about counterfactuals, even in the MWI/Level whatever multiverse? > > > > Why is communication needed? > Because otherwise there can be no physical influence, and - within the branch(es) in which the MGA is being carried out - the recorded system is identical to the non-recorded one. Without any physical communication / interference there is no difference from a single universe version. Well, ISTM, at least. -- 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.
