On 09 Sep 2015, at 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/09/2015 4:29 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-09 8:20 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <[email protected]>:
On 9/8/2015 10:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-09-09 7:39 GMT+02:00 Brent Meeker <[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.
I think it is. Unless you reify the notion of world.
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.
Either we assume a collapse, which is equivalent with limiting in some
way the range of the SWE, or we don't, in which case we have relative
alternate superpositions.
And when did I ever say that I disliked metaphysics? I might label
some discussions as metaphysical because they lack physical
evidential support,
But a platonist does not take physical evidence as making a theory
true, only plausible or just not yet refuted.
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.
Which religious dogma? You are the one who seem to believe in physical
Aristotelian Universe. We don't make such an assumption.
Bruno
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
