Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc >> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I >> invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not >> comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named >> "Chris".
I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me, firstly because he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it will save me the embarrassment if I have him wrong. I've elaborated at length on my own criticisms of step 3 and stand by them. I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or difficult to follow. That the person who actually devised the steps themselves remains confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief. There;s something very odd about that. There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to MWI. Like some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when (if?) he defends the notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI context. I can see though that in Comp people are duplicated within worlds whereas in MWI they are duplicated between worlds, and there possibly are some repercussions vis a vis the proper use of pro-nouns because of that. Im not sure it matters much, because Clark could be right about Comp and just inconsistent about MWI. So this complaint, loudly pursued by Quentin, has always seemed impotent to me and not worth bothering about. Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because, mentioning no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm wavey about people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least, I'll limit myself to recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw. All the best Chris. Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300 Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote: String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured Correctly, I assume. and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction. That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you can do it very simply anyway? And how can it be done very simply? By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons). Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR. It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals / non-locality). This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons). Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't me showing this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory onwards). It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
