On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 4:51 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > my point was that the your assertion about Occam's razor is just that. > There is no proof, nor can there be that this measure of "simplicity" is > what Occam really meant, or is the real and true simplicity. It is just > the revisionist thinking since Occam's time that has leaned to the "fewest > assumptions" idea. His actual "razor" was, "Entities must not be > multiplied beyond necessity." Not "assumptions" but "entities". > I am quite certain "entities" is *NOT* the word William of Ockham used because he was born in the 13th century and spoke Middle English (which sounds more like German than English to a speaker of modern English) and wrote exclusively in Latin. And whatever Latin word he used instead of "entities|" it must've meant a thing that has not been proved, a.k.a. an assumption, I mean, what else could he have meant? Why in the world would he object to taking things that HAVE been proven into account when forming a theory? This is what Wikipedia has to say about Ockham;s Razor: *"The Razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions"* > > *>>all those many worlds are the result of the one and only assumption >> that Many Worlds makes, everything always obeys Schrodinger's Equation. * > > > > *> And it makes the assumption that somehow when we figure it out and > we're really, really, that we will (probably) explain how our world splits > off and the Born rule obtains without anymore assumptions.* *Sorry but I can't quite parse that sentence. * > *And note that the Schrodinger equation is also unclear except it isolated > laboratory experiments* *Exactly the same the could be said about the law of conservation of matter, when I light a piece of paper on fire it sure seems like matter is destroyed, and we only realized it when we lit a piece of paper in isolated isolated laboratory experiments/ * > > *It is unclear whether an air molecule bouncing this way instead of > that splits the world or not. * > *Maybe Worlds is wrong but it is not unclear, if the laws of physics allow for an air molecule to bounce two different ways and Many Worlds is right then the world splits. If it's wrong then it doesn't. * > *>>Bruno had nothing equivalent to the two slit experiment, and because >> Occam's razor says a theory should always make the smallest assumptions, >> and "everything computable happens" includes "everything obeys >> Schrodinger's equation" BUT it also contains an infinite amount of other >> stuff that is unnecessary to explain observations. * > > You mean like an infinite number of universe and not just alpha-nought > number but a continuum infinity of worlds. > According to Many Wolds there might be an infinite number of worlds or there might only be an astronomical Number to an astronomical power of them, it takes no position in the finite versus infinite debate. And as I keep telling you, Hugh Everett didn't just conjure up all those worlds because he thought they were neat about me good science fiction stories, he did it because it's an inevitable consequence of believing that Schrodinger's equation means what it says. > > *The place and the time that the change had occurred.* > > > > *What change? A change that's "observable"?* > *No. But you already knew that. * *>>> What happens there that produces the Born rule?* >> >> > > *>> What happens is the only thing that could happen if Schrodinger's >> Equation is going to produce a set of positive real numbers between 0 and 1 >> that always add up to exactly one.* > > *> That doesn't necessarily produce the Born rule. * *Yes it does! **.According to Gleason's theorem the Born Rule DOES produce a set of numbers that* *1) are all real numbers between zero and one * *2) all the numbers add up to exactly one. * *3) and the numbers multiply exactly the same way that the laws of probability multiply. * *And Gleason's theorem says one other thing, the Born Rule is the ONLY way to do it.* > > -- 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/CAJPayv1pAAkBnt6sJWHQFQC9CUhH8vbpXDQ0dyqNZGUsWf4Z5w%40mail.gmail.com.
