On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou <stat...@gmail.com >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >>> >>> The universe as a whole is determined in every detail, and random choice >>> of the observer in measuring a particle is not really a random choice. >>> >> >> If you believe that, you believe in magic sauce. >> > > It is a consequence of Many Worlds that there is no true randomness, but > only apparent randomness. If Many Worlds is wrong, then this may also be > wrong. Randomness in choice of measurement is required for the apparent > nonlocal effect when considering entangled particles. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou >
That's what *Many Worlds* implies. The mystery is: Why do (according to the science press in the wake of Sean Carroll's book) so many people think Many Worlds is a good scientific idea (or the best idea, according to the author). Superdeterminism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism - though apparently is a "One World" theory. @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1b4821a-56d1-4b49-a1ba-ebea4a321ee7%40googlegroups.com.
