On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:35 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:14:16AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > But there are no branches to be "equally real". You are fond of calling > sound > > arguments "non sequitur". > > If the arguments were sound, I would not call them non-sequitur. There > is the possibility I missed something you consider obvious, but in > that case, I just ask you to dig deeper to join the dots. > The epistemic interpretation says that the wave function is merely a summary of our knowledge of the physical situation. And it gives the probabilities for various future outcomes. There are no "branches", so there is nothing to be "equally real". > Your claim that all branches are equally real is > > indeed a non sequitur, in that it does not follow from anything at all. > > Indeed. As is that there is only a single reality. But one is simpler than > the other. A lot of people get Occam's razor wrong here. > There is only one reality, and a set of probabilities for future outcomes. The simplest solution is that the so-called "other worlds" do not exist. They are just a figment of your imagination. I know that your starting point is that "everything exists" is simpler than any other proposition. But if you do not start from there, you can see that this position is indeed otiose. Bruce -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR29b8r9Ky4DRcrv4G%3Dij8S5-e1%3DNdcg_31WfDu7pr5ZA%40mail.gmail.com.
