On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 7:27:32 PM UTC-6, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 11:15, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:00 AM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] >> <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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d1b4821a-56d1-4b49-a1ba-ebea4a321ee7%40googlegroups.com.
