> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology. >> >> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a >> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the >> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the Copenhagen-von >> Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at the universe, >> like materialism requires a god selecting a unique computation, but that’s >> no more doing science. >> >> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the >> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the >> collapse idea. The collapse is usually not even defined in any intelligible >> sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with Mechanism, but also >> with the scientific attitude, I would say. >> >> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into >> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a >> 1p plural observable and sharable reality. >> >> Why to believe in any “world"? >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> Applied sciences >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science> >> >> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see). >> >> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to >> consider MWI in science at all. > > That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut up > and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. > > Bruno > > > > It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between instrumentalism > [strict antirealism] and realism).
“Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical realism, which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but consciousness and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in principle the whole of the mathematical reality, which is multiple and undefinable (by machines, provably by machine’s too). Bruno > > @philipthrift > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5005d9cc-5e7f-4e6e-8ef3-188665cadad3%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5005d9cc-5e7f-4e6e-8ef3-188665cadad3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/682E3D20-513C-4658-B822-EF1A1FC0B4AD%40ulb.ac.be.
