On 9/09/2015 7:11 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-09 9:01 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
<mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>:
On 9/09/2015 4:29 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-09 8:20 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:
On 9/8/2015 10:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-09 7:39 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:
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 ?
The issue with probability in the MWI is well-known. When every outcome
of a particular interaction is realized, the probability for any
particular outcome is, prima facie, unity. This is a recognized problem
for MWI. Considerable effort has been devoted to the attempt to derive
the Born Rule from the MWI. These attempts have failed. So probability
is still a problem for the MWI. There is no problem with probability in
the application of QM -- the Born rule appears to be in complete accord
with all available data, but the MWI cannot deal with this in a
satisfactory manner.
Most of the discussion on this list appears to be on the basis that the
MWI is the default position for quantum mechanics. You can always cast
this as a conditional -- "given MWI then...", but if the problems with
MWI are not acknowledged, and alternative interpretations of QM are
treated with scorn and ridicule, then the attachment to MWI comes close
to being a religious devotion.
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 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.
