On 8/8/2019 2:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 4:20 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 8/8/2019 2:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > In QM, it is the difference between "the Schrodinger equation" and > "the Schrodinger equation + complex observer-dependent operations > (whose limits are yet to be rigorously defined)" > - Why complicate the theory because there are branches we can't see or > change? Because the idea is to have a theory that predicts things, not that just spins a story. And in fact we observe a quasi-classical world. So a theory that just predicts a lot of "branches" is otiose and worthless.Is the idea of a past, or of matter beyond the cosmological horizon otiose? Why or why not?
The past hypothesis is part predictions of current observations (e.g. light arrives from long ago).
I would say the value of a theory is not only to predict things but to explain things. A theory with a complicated observer-dependent ontology makes explanation and comprehension far more difficult, and such a theory is at constant risk of being disproved by advances in experimental or observational capability. (e.g. the prediction by Guth that the universe is at least 10^23 times larger than the observable universe, as a consequence of the flatness of space).
Being at risk of being disproved is the mark of a scientific theory. "God did it." is great at explanation and at no risk of being disproved...just like "Everything possible happens...but almost all of it where we can't see it."
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/4ba17488-f215-c5f5-d95b-ae4bac2f5643%40verizon.net.
