On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/21/2020 5:40 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 3:48:56 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 Feb 2020, at 09:47, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, February 21, 2020 at 12:46:57 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 2:59:05 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> I think Bruce's position is that quantum processes are inherently >>>> random and thus NOT computable. Doesn't this conclusion, if true, totally >>>> disconfirm Bruno's theory that the apparent physical universe comes into >>>> being by computations of arithmetic pre-existing principles or postulates? >>>> AG >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> William James thought belief in *determinism* is a form of *religious >>> bondage*. >>> >>> https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/ >>> >>> @philipthrift >>> >> >> But true randomness, as the opposite of determinism, could be equated >> with UN-intelligibility. AG >> >> >> To postulate it is irrational. OK. But once the randomness admits a >> simple explanation, like with the self-duplicating procedure, it becomes >> intelligible. Everett saves physics from being un-intelligible, and indeed, >> leads to the explanation by arithmetic and its internal meta-arithmetic (à >> la Gödel). >> >> Bruno >> > > But, as I just pointed out in my previous message, the price paid is way > too high to avoid randomness; that is, self-duplication is too silly to be > believable. I prefer a possible middle ground; that the universe isn't > really stochastic (an inference from QM), but pseudo random. AG > > > You should read Ruth Kastner's book on "The Transactional Interpretation". > > Brent >
Thanks, but I am not an enthusiast of the TI, since it requires pro-active processes for each particles going backward in time. I've asked this before, but haven't gotten a reply, or at least one I can recall. What's wrong with just assuming that in a superposition of states, the amplitudes give us the probability of each state in the sum, and NOT that the system is in all states simultaneously? Doesn't this interpretation resolves most, or all of the alleged paradoxes of QM? TIA, AG -- 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/38fb7de2-925f-4ee5-ba10-0ecfd0eac8b4%40googlegroups.com.
