On 12/31/2024 4:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
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 Ockhamused
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,
pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be
posited without necessity.” He doesn't say plurality of what. He makes
no reference to proof. That it refers to assumptions is a modern
interpretation.
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?
You have gratuitously assumed it had to do with proof.
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"/*
And Wikipedia just records current thoughts on Occam's razor.
*/
/*
*>>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.*Add "sure" after
"really, really".*
*
/And note that the Schrodinger equation is also unclear except it
isolated laboratory experiments/
*Exactly the same the could be said aboutthe 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.
*
I thought the big advantage of MWI in your view is that it told you what
really happens. So when the molecules can bounce two different ways,
what Schroedinger's equation predicts a is a superposition. Not a
mixture. In other words they bounce both different ways.
In parallel to your burning paper example, we have not tested bouncing
two molecules and detecting whether the world splits. In fact we never
detect whether the world splits. We only get this or that result. We
have a theory that predicts the probability that this or that result
occurs. So why isn't assuming that other results occur where they can't
be observed postulating pluralities. Why is the interpretation of
probability, which you claim is built into Schroedinger's equation plus
Gleason's theorem, not the probability that one thing occurs and not any
other.
*>>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 Everettdidn'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.
Hugh Everett didn't conjure them up at all. His was the "relative
state" interpretation. Bryce Dewitt is mainly responsible for the many
worlds idea.
*The place and the time that the change had occurred.*
/What change? A change that's "observable"?/
*No. But you already knew that.
*
See the bouncing molecules above.*
*
/>>> 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.*
Except Schoedinger's equation produces a lot of complex values until you
make a measurement (which is NOT described by the Schroedinger eqn).
Brent
/> That doesn't necessarily produce the Born rule. /
*Yes it does! **.According to Gleason's theorem the Born Rule DOES
produce a set of numbersthat*
*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 Ruleis 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
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1pAAkBnt6sJWHQFQC9CUhH8vbpXDQ0dyqNZGUsWf4Z5w%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/0247ccc8-6075-4e71-8a31-31cf689be5dd%40gmail.com.
