On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 7:33 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 4:39 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 7:43 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> *>>> For comparison you could posit a theory, MWI*, which is MWI plus the
>>> provision that only one exists with probability as defined by the Born
>>> rule.  Would MWI* be a different interpretation than modern-CI? *
>> >> In that case  MWI* would be the same as CI un that neither could
>> explain why Schrodinger's equation and the Born rule treat one world
>> very differently from all the others that makes it more real.  MWI* we
>> have to start talking about measurement and observers and all that crap.
>> >
>> *All that crap that makes up everything we observe, write down, report
>> and cite in papers?  That crap?*
> Yes. If somebody proposes a theory that would have profound physical and
> philosophical implications and a key ingredient of that theory is something
> called "measurement " that seems to have magical abilities and nobody can
> even approximately explain what a measurement is, much less how it works
> it's magic, then that theory is 100% extra virgin triple distilled premium
> grade CRAP.
> Speaking of crap, Einstein once asked Niels Bohr a very interesting
> question, "*do you believe the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking
> at it?*". Apparently Bohr's response has been lost to history.

I believe it was Pais that he asked this question to, but he was in the
same camp of the non-realists like Bohr.


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 

Reply via email to