On 4/18/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:


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

A lawless universe that is predictable per the Schroedinger equation??  What does that mean?

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2937b15c-96c8-c6e7-c39c-927b407623fd%40gmail.com.

Reply via email to