On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results > > >> > Yes, provided that "you" means somebody who remembers being > > Quentin Anciaux > > at this instant. MWI says everything that doesn't violate the laws of > physics will happen, so in one of those many worlds you have been elected > Pope > , > and in another you have graduated from > Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College > , > and in yet another you have won the Nobel Prize. And all of them are > "you" because all of them remember reading this post at this instant. > > > Oh! You change your mind. Now computationalism is like MWI, > I have always thought that computationalism was compatible with MWI, if not I would have never come to believe that MWI was the least ridiculous of all known quantum interpretations. > > > you agree with Quentin > I was unaware that Quentin and I agreed on anything. > > > that if there is no computationalist FPI, > I have no idea what absurd logical contortions you underwent to form that conclusion, and please don't tell me, I just ate. > > you have a problem with how Everett justify the use of probability in QM A transactional approach is interesting but very few of even the most enthusiastic supporters of Everett (including me) think that all the mathematical difficulties of dealing with probability if infinity is involved have been ironed out. But if spacetime is quantized then Everett might not need to deal with infinities at all. John K Clark -- 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.
