On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> Everett says observation is not what causes a universe to split it's >> simply a change, a change made in anything will make it happen and it >> doesn't matter if it's a observation or not. >> For Everett the universe splits whenever there is a change in an >> observer but it also >> also happens whenever there is a change in a non-observer. For Everett >> observers obey the exact same laws of physics that non-observers do, but in >> Copenhagen observers obey different laws, sort of like the ancient Greeks >> who thought the physics on the Earth and the physics in the realm of the >> stars were different. So unlike Everett Copenhagen needs to explain exactly >> what a observation is and it has done a pretty poor job at doing that. Is >> an ape good enough to make a observation and collapse the wave function, >> what about a dog, or a cockroach, or a bacteria, or a virus? Copenhagen >> needs to know what a observation is but doesn't. Everett doesn't know >> either but he doesn't need to know. >> > > > You make my point. Everett does not need to know, *because* he assumes > mechanism > Everett proposes a mechanism such that whenever there is a change in ANYTHING, living or dead conscious or unconscious, the universe splits so that everything that can happen does happen > >> >> >> It's exactly the same thing. If I receive stimuli from X I will be the >> guy who received stimuli from X, > > > > > After what experiment? > Living. > > > Where does stimuli X come from? > The external environment. >> >> if not >> I will >> be the guy who did not receive stimuli from X. Apparently you find this >> fact profound, I do not. > > > > > You were too much vague, here. > Which word didn't you understand? > > >>> >> >>> Even an omniscient God cannot predict the result of self-measurement in >>> those cases. >> >> >> >> >> Even an omniscient God cannot >> make >> the guy who received stimuli from X >> t >> he guy who >> did not >> receive stimuli from X >> . >> > > > > But what made the stimuli X? > Stimuli X had a cause or it didn't, and if it didn't then it was random because that's what random means. > > > > If it is the lottery: God *can* know the outcome. > To make a prediction you must know the cause and even God can't know the cause of X if X has no cause. And asking God to make the man who saw X the man who didn't see X is like asking God to make a rock so heavy He can't lift it. 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.
