2015-09-09 9:01 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]>: > On 9/09/2015 4:29 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2015-09-09 8:20 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> > [email protected]>: > > On 9/8/2015 10:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-09-09 7:39 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker < <[email protected]> >> [email protected]>: >> >>> >>> But he would say the same thing if only one fork of the program were >>> executed at each branch. So whether the other branches are executed is >>> not related to observations. >>> >> >> Hence probability is not linked with true randomness >> >> But it could be. Imagining an ignorance model for the randomness doesn't >> make it so. >> >> but from appereance of randomness from a 1st person POV. >> >> As for Bruce, could you then be honest, and simply say you don't believe >> in the many world interpretation and don't want to explore it... yes we're >> talking mostly metaphysics on this list, if you dislike it, I wonder what >> you're doing here. >> >> Have I ever said I did believe it. I wasn't aware you had to believe >> theories in order to discuss them...isn't that theology rather than >> science. >> > > First I said "Bruce", not "Brent", secondly, it's Bruce who seems to > dislike "metaphysics" and seems not wanting to discuss it by saying it's > useless. If you feel concerned by that, it's on you. > > I am with Brent on this. MWI is an interpretation of QM, it is not an > independently tested theory. One can discuss it, just as one might discuss > the pros and cons of any interpretation of any theory. But one does not > have to believe it. > > And when did I ever say that I disliked metaphysics? I might label some > discussions as metaphysical because they lack physical evidential support, > but that does not mean that I dislike metaphysics. It can be interesting > and useful in the right place. It becomes problematic when a person's > metaphysical stance becomes a pseudo-religious dogma, and people start > abusing others for having different metaphysical predilections. The trouble > is that much of the metaphysics on this list falls into the "religious > dogma" category. >
Where is the religious dogma ? It's you who's saying it's invalid to use probability under MWI... whereas you didn't show it is... I've seen nobody who's arguing MWI *is true*, only that if it is, then you have this and that consequences... but here, you're denying something (the usage of probability) in the case the MWI is true (meaning it is the correct interpretation of QM theory)... you're saying that you can't use probability (or I didn't get what you were saying) in MWI setting... is that correct or not ? > > > 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
