On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 3:55:26 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 12:47:37AM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 12:27:27 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Saturday, December 28, 2024 at 12:10:14 AM UTC-7 Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 10:56:06PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote:> > > On Friday, December 27, 2024 at 11:07:34 PM UTC-7 Russell Standish > wrote:> > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 06:14:52PM -0800, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > > > From your pov, does the MWI imply new universes are created at > every zig > > or zag of an ant or a common house fly, or a motorist at a T > -intersection? Yes > > or No? AG > > > > > > > Yes. Or differentiates. Its the same thing, actually. To those who > see > > a distinction, take your pick. > > > > > > But since you have no clue what an entire universe actually IS, don't > you think > > you're speculating way beyond your pay grade? AG > > No. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected] > http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Maybe those ants and flying insects have more consciousness than you are > willing > to admit, so you don't need a human observing them to create new universes. > Equally important is the fact that your universes don't interact so you > don't have > a verifiable scientific theory. Does any of this matter to you? Of course > not, since > this is another sign of being a cultist. AG > > > All you have are smoke and mirrors. On second thought, maybe just smoke. AG I spent considerable time in 2006 developing the arguments and expressing it in a cogent form in my book "Theory of Nothing". I don't feel like recapitulating the arguments here in these emails, in a less cogent form, when you can just go read the book. I am happy to engage with valid criticisms of anything I said in that book - indeed, if you search the everything archive, you may find your specific concern already addressed. What I don't want to do is address your strawman arguments, where you deliberately misstate your opponents' positions. Yes, it does matter to me whether a theory is falsifiable or not. Nobody is claiming many worlds is a scientific theory in the Popperian sense. Well maybe Deutsch does, arguing that quantum supremacy is sufficient rule out the alternative of a single universe, but I'm not really convinced by that :P. The trouble is that the alternative of a single objective reality that you argue for is not a falsifiable scientific theory either. *Seriously, you don't know what you're claiming. QM is easily falsified,* *on every measurement ! , but the MWI has no measurements since its* *worlds don't interact. Is this one of the strawman arguments you refer* *to? AG* The real problem is that Occams razor actually prefers the everything theory over a single objective reality. -- 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/54fda47b-1525-4d67-a4d7-6e12e1fdb0ffn%40googlegroups.com.
