On 5/13/2015 5:32 PM, Russell Standish 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.
If "not in any universe" is meant in the Kripke sense, then something not in any universe
is something that is logically impossible. But if "not in any universe" is meant in the
MWI sense, then counterfactuals are only those outcomes consistent with QM but which don't
happen. I think it is only the latter kind of counterfactual that need be considered in
computations.
Brent
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?
--
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.
