On 6/24/2019 2:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Jun 2019, at 05:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/23/2019 5:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jun 2019, at 21:49, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/21/2019 5:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jun 2019, at 09:04, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
To disconfirm MWI you'd have to observe statistics far from
the expected value,
To make my point more strongly, that is the wrong way round.
Observation of statistics far from the expected value is what
would be required to confirm MWI.
I don’t see this at all.
The fact that we don't observe such results is the strongest
possible case against MWI!
?
The probability to see a deviation is the same in both Everett,
and Copenhagen. The deviation expected is the same, so if there is
a deviation, it can hardly be used to claim one theory is more
correct than the other.
But as Bruce points out Tegmark's machine gun experiment is
effectively being carried out by each of us.
That is quantum immortality. On this list I have defend this, but
Tegmark rejected it, and claimed that the survival to quantum
suicide does not entail quantum immortality. He might have changed
his mind since, perhaps.
So if each of us lives on a million years in some branch of the MW,
then each of us will experience 99.9% of our life as a very old
person among people younger than 100yrs.
Unless there are intimidate realities in between Earth and Heaven.
It would still imply that each person would experience only a small
part of their existence surrounded by other persons whose age
differed by less that 120yr from their own. And so each of us should
be surprised that we find ourself in exactly that kind of world.
Using some anthropoid argument, but like fine tuning, I tend to agree
with Vic that is is not really convincing, and should be handled
mathematically. Only progress in the mathematical theology will show
if this threat Mechanism or not.
It's certainly not convincing to just say "it's not convincing". Vic
gave specific arguments for his position, which was that there is no
quantum immortality. It is not the case that in QM "everything
happens"...there are light bands where particles /*don't*/ land in a
Young's slit experiment.
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/576cfe20-45af-bdc5-9aff-01321cda998e%40verizon.net.
