On 9/8/2015 5:57 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-08 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>:On 8/09/2015 9:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On 8 September 2015 at 20:48, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 8/09/2015 8:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:On 8 September 2015 at 17:39, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 8/09/2015 4:56 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:I will ask you the same question as I did Brent: do you conclude from the fact that when you toss a coin it comes up either as head or tails that the world does not split into two parallel versions of you, one of which sees heads and the other tails?I would conclude that a coin toss does not provide any evidence for multiple worlds or a split. The only evidence we have from this data is that the outcome of the toss is uncertain. There is no evidence there for any split of anything. It is not evidence FOR a split but is it evidence AGAINST a split?It is evidence that the assumption of a split is not necessary in order to understand everyday happenings. So, by the application of Occam's Razor, no split happens. So you agree that we would still observe the probabilities we do if we lived in a deterministic world in whaich all possibilities are realised?No, because not all possibilities happen in this world. If all possibilities were realized in this world, then there would be no uncertainty, no probabilities. Possibility and actuality would be the same thing. All the horses would win the Melbourne cup; and we don't live in such a world.Either MWI is true, and all possibilities happen or it is not... so the questions is, do you think that MWI is false, because probabilities seems to means something in this world... because what I understand of what you're saying, is that if MWI is true then probabilities should have no meaning, but as you say they have meaning, then MWI is false... Is that what you're implying ?
Bruce can answer for himself, but my view is that probability is just a mathematical theory, like calculus or linear algebra. If there is something that satisfies its axioms (to sufficient approximation) then we can apply and use probability theory. MWI in it's meta-physical form doesn't seem to satisfy the axioms. It doesn't have a borel set with a measure. "Everything happens" isn't a borel set.
Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
