On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> I guess you never clicked the link I provided at the start of this > thread. * I've done a lot better than click on a link that provides a brief synopsis, I've spent hours reading every page in the man's entire book and you and Bruno should do the same. *>You got it at least once 6 years ago on this list when you agreed that a > forking computer process containing AIs could not predict which process > they would end up in. * I don't know what you're referring to so it's hard to know how to respond, but since you can pinpoint the exact time, 6 years ago, you should be able to include the exact quote where I said I "got it" and enough context around it so it's clear who "they" are that failed to make a prediction, and even more important it's crystal clear exactly what the correct prediction would have turned out to be. > quoting Carroll: "*Now quantum mechanics comes along and throws a spanner > into the works a little bit if you're a many-worlds person Laplace is demon > is still possible*". Yes, if Many Worlds is correct then the Schrodinger Wave Equation of the Multiverse is all there is, and it is a 100% deterministic equation, so Laplace's demon could solve it and in theory *you* could too. And yet the empirical fact remains *you* can NOT predict the future, at least not always and not perfectly. If Many Worlds could not explain this obvious glaring discrepancy it would be dead dead dead. But Many Worlds can explain it and can do so easily; *you* can't answer the question "*What one and only one thing will **you** see tomorrow after the universe splits?*" for exactly the same reason *you* can't answer Bruno's question "*What one and only one thing will **you* *see tomorrow after **you** are duplicated and **you* *become two and **you** see two different things?*" The difference is in the Many Worlds case, after the universe splits, if I asked *you* today what the correct answer *you* should have given yesterday was: 1) It would be obvious who the question was directed to. 2) It would obvious what would have been the correct answer. Neither of these things is true for Bruno's "question". Of course Sean Carroll delves into this issue in far greater detail that I have here, and you'd know that if you had read the man's book as I have. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2W1oyZi0P4fZsAD7dbRgrYBs%2BZ6kgbFJVT8e2hWc48Ww%40mail.gmail.com.
