On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On 4/18/2022 12:55 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/18/2022 11:17 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 12:06:04 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 4/18/2022 5:35 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. >>>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly predict >>>> the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG >>>> >>>> >>>> Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is the >>>> huge difference? >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG >>> >>> >>> I asked you first. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> IIRC, you asked what was bugging ME, not AE. My guess is that he thought >> acausality violated locality and/or realism. For example, the Pilot Wave >> theory assumes each particle has a definite position and momentum. It >> doesn't violate the HUP because the HUP simply limits what we can measure. >> AG >> >> >> I asked you "What is the huge difference?" Which you ignored and just >> asked another question. >> >> Brent >> > > But the difference is obvious and implied. Whereas the resultant > probabilties attained might be indistinguishable, the underlying realities > are clearly distinct, say between Copenhagen and deBroglie-Bohm (Pilot Wave > theory). Since, at heart, you're an instrumentalist, I assume the > distinction for you is meaningless. AG > > > You can invent arbitrarily many theories of "distinct underlying > realities" which are empirically indistinguishable...that's why they are > just interpretations. The only use I see for interpretations with no > empirical difference is they may suggest better theories. I see no other > reason to prefer one interpretation over another. You might as well > introduce fairies into an interpretation or ask Deepak Chopra which one is > really real. > > Brent > So if someone, like Bohr, comes up with a lawless universe, that's fine with you; or do you deny the lawlessness? 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/5b148147-f594-48b2-8432-46669f7d3c6fn%40googlegroups.com.
