On 2/25/2020 2:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > When comparing different theories one has to weigh up the experimental > evidence to see what theory fits the evidence the best. Normally we > would consider theories that introduce new, as of yet unobserved > physics when it's not clear that the theory solves a real problem, to > be extremely speculative. This is the case for collapse theories, they > introduce new physics that has never been observed, They would say nothing else has been observed. Certainly multiple worlds have not been observed. The observation is always that there is a single result.Yes. It looks very much as though Saibal is applying the same double standard as is used by most Everettians.
Yes, it's rather strange to say a theory that predicts an event will happen, but cannot be observed, is confirmed by the event not being observed.
Brent -- 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/89c94a95-4c9d-945c-56c9-7c4fa3a1da7a%40verizon.net.
