On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of >> duplicated selves when they bach off into other worlds. >> >> Sean Carroll >> @seanmcarroll >> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168 >> >> *Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but >> unlikely quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically >> unlikely outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right >> Representative's brain at just the right time, etc.* >> >> He asks: >> >> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?" >> >> >> >> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/ >> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of >> Spacetime by Sean Carroll) >> >> >> But he gives away the game here: >> >> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on >> just as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum >> events." >> >> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity. >> >> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is >> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as >> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no >> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, >> because there is no new material needed. >> >> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the >> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.) >> > > Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no > less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know > that a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to > deciding which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use > aesthetic considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou >
What I know is that *materials science* taught in universities, applied in technology companies. But *nonmaterials* "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no applications. @philipthrift -- 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/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com.
