RE: middle way
Jacques wrote: If various polls of leading physicists have concluded that, when pressed for an answer, more believe MWI than anything else, I would like to see the results of those polls myself. Reference, please. Michael Clive Price refers to such polls in his Many-Worlds FAQ (http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm and http://soong.club.cc.cmu.edu/~pooh/lore/manyworlds.html among others). A brief quote follows: Political scientist L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists about the Many-Worlds Interpretation and gives the following response breakdown [T]. 1) Yes, I think MWI is true 58% 2) No, I don't accept MWI 18% 3) Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced 13% 4) I have no opinion one way or the other 11% Amongst the Yes, I think MWI is true crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name many-worlds, but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only No, I don't accept MWI named is Penrose. The findings of this poll are in accord with other polls, that many-worlds is most popular amongst scientists who may rather loosely be described as string theorists or quantum gravitists/cosmologists. It is less popular amongst the wider scientific community who mostly remain in ignorance of it. Anybody know anything about Price's sources for this?
RE: middle way
But the mwi faq suggests decoherence takes place, not a mystery consciousness link, and I don't recall Deutch making any reference to this in Fabric of Reality. Ken Hi Ken This is also something Han Moravec identified. It's true that Everett does not say this explicitly, but it is implicit in his paper, at least the way I read it. But I'm really just following Deutsch, and a few discussions with Rainer Plaga. Essentially, MWI is no better than Copenhagen if this is not true as there is a mystery consciousness link initiating a split. James -Original Message- From: Ken Fisher [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 2:17 PM To: Higgo James Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:Re: middle way Hi James What's up with the list? I seem not to heve received anything since 20th November. Did I unsubscribe by mistake? And where's the archive? I've received 10 messages since then and I'm still able to access the archive at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/ Comments, please, on the following piece for inclusion in the Journal of the Buddhist society. Notification of any actual inaccuracies will be especially welcome. I think it's good and I didn't find any inaccuracies, but I do have a question. You say: According to Everett's MWI, the universe is branching off every Planck Time [1e-43 second] into countless billions of other universes, each an unmoving snapshot in time, and each branching out in turn. You've suggested in several of your posts to this list and the avoidl list that the universe branches *every Planck time*, but I've never found another source that seems so sure about it. I'd be interested if you have any references. It's certainly not the view, for example, of the mwi faq at http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#do which says: Worlds irrevocably split at the sites of measurement-like interactions associated with thermodynamically irreversible processes... I'd very much appreciate comments about this either from you or from anyone else on the list. Ken Fisher
RE: middle way
Hi Ken This is also something Han Moravec identified. It's true that Everett does not say this explicitly, but it is implicit in his paper, at least the way I read it. But I'm really just following Deutsch, and a few discussions with Rainer Plaga. Essentially, MWI is no better than Copenhagen if this is not true as there is a mystery consciousness link initiating a split. James -Original Message- From: Ken Fisher [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 2:17 PM To: Higgo James Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: middle way Hi James What's up with the list? I seem not to heve received anything since 20th November. Did I unsubscribe by mistake? And where's the archive? I've received 10 messages since then and I'm still able to access the archive at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/ Comments, please, on the following piece for inclusion in the Journal of the Buddhist society. Notification of any actual inaccuracies will be especially welcome. I think it's good and I didn't find any inaccuracies, but I do have a question. You say: According to Everett's MWI, the universe is branching off every Planck Time [1e-43 second] into countless billions of other universes, each an unmoving snapshot in time, and each branching out in turn. You've suggested in several of your posts to this list and the avoidl list that the universe branches *every Planck time*, but I've never found another source that seems so sure about it. I'd be interested if you have any references. It's certainly not the view, for example, of the mwi faq at http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#do which says: Worlds irrevocably split at the sites of measurement-like interactions associated with thermodynamically irreversible processes... I'd very much appreciate comments about this either from you or from anyone else on the list. Ken Fisher
