On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 2:55:09 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:12 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > *> I'll bet you Adrian Kent's paper* (did you read it?) is netter than >> Shut Up And Read Sean Carroll's Book On Many Worlds.* > > > I won't even ask you if you read it because I know you didn't, I didn't > either but at least I skimmed it and found it said: > > "*This motivates exploring ways to go beyond standard quantum theory, for > example by adding extra mathematical structure (as in de Broglie-Bohm > theory or new dynamical laws (as in GRWP models)*." > > And Carroll talks in detail about both Broglie-Bohm theory and GRWP models > in his book, so what is this "curious omission" you accuse Carroll of > making? And the above is entirely consistent with Carroll saying that Hugh > Everett did not add anything new to quantum mechanics, instead he just > stripped out a lot of extraneous stuff because Many Worlds does not need to > "add extra mathematical structure" to make it fit observation. The only > purpose of that extra mathematical stuff is to get rid of many worlds, it > does nothing else. And > William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave. > > John K Clark >
In any case, Kent dismisses Many Worlds. One World is enough: *One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation* Adrian Kent https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0624 *Against Many-Worlds Interpretations* Adrian Kent https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9703089 @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/66d0df09-c86d-496b-8236-d70f007bf1d2%40googlegroups.com.
