On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 2:08 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2020, at 05:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No, I am suggesting that Many-worlds is a failed theory, unable to account > for everyday experience. A stochastic single-world theory is perfectly able > to account for what we see. > > > Only by assuming a non-mechanist theory of mind, but then you have a > problem with Darwin, Molecular -biology and even the SWE. That is like > adding magic to keep a metaphysics consistent, when it is not. > The boot is actually on the other foot. If you assume unitary evolution as for Everett, you need some magic to ensure that repeats of your experiment, by yourself or other observers, will give the same results. The "no miracles" argument is a powerful tool against Everett. (To summarise, the main reason is that the data obtained in any experiment are independent of the original branch weights -- consequently, there is nothing to keep the data consistent between repeats of the experiment.).) Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLSK_i7RDMZ_bvXYaeNxo1LZF3s1HBN0t0j5o_cKyZD-RQ%40mail.gmail.com.
