I don't find the Occam's razor argument very persuasive. First, having
an infinity of universes does seem very simple. Sure it's argued that
the THEORY is simpler, but who says that that saving a few lines of
theory trumps having an extra bazillion universes. And if you favor the
MWI why not take it all the way like our friend Bruno and say that
everything computable happens. That's a "simple" theory too. And when
exactly does the world split? Is it within the forward light cone? And
where exactly is the point of that cone? What happens there that
produces the Born rule?
Personally I tend to take a more instrumentalist view of QM.
Brent
On 12/29/2024 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2024 at 5:55 PM Russell Standish
<[email protected]> wrote:
/> The trouble is that thealternative of a single objective
reality that you argue for is not afalsifiable scientific theory
either. The real problem is that Occamsrazor actually prefers the
everything theory over a single objectivereality./
*Very well stated I think.*
*
*
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
ub0
--
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/CAJPayv0%3DR7%2B9%2B2wKW9XrLctRCzwtC7ZO77PDCTtjqRXFFMz81A%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%3DR7%2B9%2B2wKW9XrLctRCzwtC7ZO77PDCTtjqRXFFMz81A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/892f77f3-dc37-4490-95b0-ec26482b123b%40gmail.com.
