> On 25 Jan 2021, at 21:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/25/2021 5:39 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 at 12:59:02 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 1/20/2021 3:58 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:01 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected] >>> <applewebdata://5159B687-5986-4F4F-A7E1-75E465279C65>> wrote: >>> >>> >> No, there are NOT exactly 10 winners! There are an astronomical number >>> >> to an astronomical power number horses that won that race with only a >>> >> submicroscopic difference between them, and there are also an >>> >> astronomical number to an astronomical power number of Alan Graysons >>> >> that won his bet on that race. >>> >>> > So instead of all possible outcomes being measured in some other world, >>> >>> Except for its simplicity the most important advantage of many worlds is >>> that it doesn't have to explain what "measured" means, or what a "observer" >>> means, or what a "choice" means because in many worlds ANY physical change >>> of any sort causes the Universe to split. >> >> That sounds like a bug not a feature. Does every C14 decay in your body >> instantiate a different world? Every photon that's absorbed by that >> chlorophyll molecule instead of that other molecule? As Bruno says, "World" >> and "Universe" become hard to define. If you say "This universe." does it >> mean anything, even for a moment? But it you can't give meaning to "This" >> how can you make sense of an experiment in which "This" evolves into "That"? >> You need some way to talk about the quasi-classical world, because as Bohr >> noted, that's where we live and that's where science predicts things. >> >> Brent >> >> Now you know why I call the MWI "Trump Physics". Its advocates will never >> admit it's woefully wrong, like our hopefully departed "leader" who never >> admits a mistake. Another example of this utter foolishness; note the >> numerous worlds created by ants which move along in repeated zig-zags. AG > > I think you get entirely to worked up over it. We have a theory that has a > huge domain of application. Is predictive and extremely accurate. The only > problem is the interpretation of the processes described by the mathematics. > Interpretations are not theories. They are not right or wrong, because they > can't be tested. W.V.O. Quine contributed to this confusion by saying that > ontology was the set of entities presupposed by our best theory. That's a > philosopher's view. I seems to make the questions of Hilbert space or > C*-algebra, discrete or continuous, Turing computable or not, into important > questions of what really, really exists. That's the wrong attitude. It's > the error of the misplaced concrete. Feynmann had it right when he > said,"Every good physicists knows five different ways to express the same > physics in mathematics." The function of interpretations is to suggest > better theories. Better theories are ones with bigger domains and more > accurate predictions. First we get better knowledge of facts; then we can > worry about the ontology later. That's why I say epistemology precedes > ontology.
Epistemology precedes Ontology, epistemologically. OK, but Ontology precedes Epistemology ontologically. If not, the subject of knowledge becomes magical, somehow out of reality. I almost agree with Quine here: the Fundamental Ontology (the ontology for a TOE) is given by the denotation of the terms of the fundamental theory that we have to assume if interested in the fundamental reality. To bad Quine was nominalist/physicalist. > > Everett saw that there was a gap in QM. Measurement wasn't really given a > physical description. The collapse of the wave function was just stuck in by > hand. So he tried to fill it in. This led to the study of decoherence and a > better theory of measurement. It provides some definition of the Heisenberg > cut. I think it still leaves a small gap. … a big one, actually. > MWI advocates think it's complete. It is complete for physics, and physical prediction, but incomplete with respect to the relation between the prediction and the first person experience. Here Everett is using the “psycho-physico-parallelism, but by using mechanism, he has to justify the wave in a manner similar to his justification of the collapse appearance. > But it's an interpretation...it's not true or false. What will lead to > unification with gravity and spacetime is the interesting question. For logician, an interpretation of a theory is a representation of the model of that theory in some other theories. Some interpretation can be made precise and tested. The cut between theories and interpretation is somehow arbitrary. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6ff494d-5af5-423b-19d0-9e0cf12985ae%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d6ff494d-5af5-423b-19d0-9e0cf12985ae%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/F2210D34-D406-4840-8032-49DC043AFC14%40ulb.ac.be.
