On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: >> >> The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? >> >> I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly >> apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact >> other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill >> would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM >> interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game >> is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase >> parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less >> parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky >> wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of >> parsimonious you find most fitting. >> > > MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this > day - assumptions built in at the start. > > > ? > > MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). > It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a > multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a > multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a > multiverse though). > > > > It's like, local realism - a reasonable assumed universal. > > > Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of > the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor > products. > > > > But only the bare bones. Assuming locarealism means locality as we > perceive, > > > As we infer from what we perceive. We cannot *perceive" locality by itself. > > > > and classically seems to be. In; these dimensions. But what happens when > science transforms through a major generalization? The hallmark is that not > only theories get merged, broken up, such that everything looks > different. But that the revolution stretchs right out to the conceptual > framework itself...the basic concepts that are upfront necessary to be > shared, for basic communication to take place. It's all concepts broken > apart, while others merged together. We can put some faith in local > realism, but in what dimensionality it's pure, we don't about that yet..we > don't know.MWI assumes that it's a safe scientific known. It isn't. In fact > everything is against that. > > > Personally, even without comp and without QM, "everything" is conceptually > more simpler than any one-thing approach, which always needs much more > particular assumptions. > > > > There literally dozens of others. Like assuming major properties are > duplicated "as is" between higher and lower macrostate layers. MWI'ers need > to assume local realism at quantum levels as is. Unprecedented if true. > Daft in other words. > > > Is it not more simple to assume the same realism at all scale, that to bet > on different one? > > > > > When I throw this at them, the response if there is one is usually6 denial > that MWI needs those massive assumptions and would not have happened > without them. Arguments come the lines of MWI is derived clean from the > wave function or by some other theoretical strtucture, involving simple > assumptions only none of them things like local realism. > > > I agree, except that local realism is, as I said above, a consequence of > the SWE. > > > > > They just don't get it, science, anymore. theories as internal theory > structure get improved all the time as part of an ongoing > progression. Building out an assumption is not a matter of improving theory > structure alone. > > MWI is tied to assuming local realism for all time, because it was only > the extreme and disturbing - incomprehensible even to the greats - > character of quantum strangenessl. MWI is tied to it, because that is what > it took hat an outrageous, unscientific notion like MWI could be taken > seriously at all. > > > Frankly, I believe the exact contrary. MWI is what you get from assuming > the axioms of quantum mechanics, and that is the unitary evolution. > > > > MWI even now, has not defense for itself, without reference to quantum > strangeness,, and restorations to classical determinism. > > > Which I think would be enough to make it most plausible than any other > (sur)-interpretation. But MWI, which is just the SWE "seen from inside", > restore not classical determinism, but also, well, local locality and well > local realism. > > > > > It's a quantum theory, and it's wrong, because it's assumptions are that > the nature of reality is hard tied forever to principles, > > > That's QM. That tomorrow we might discover that QM is false is just > science. But if comp and/or QM is correct, the many-thing will remain with > us, indeed. > > > > hard tied to the complexities of this dimension, this universe right here. > What a joke. The harm done by this theory is immeasurable. A theory > sterile for all time, placed all around the boundaries beyond the frontiers > of science, that can never be discoverex, never be passed through, never be > built over, or under. It's an act of murder of the human and scientific > dreamss > > > Hmm... > I don't want to defend the truth of QM, or the truth of comp, or the truth > of the MW. But I do believe that QM, or just comp, implies the Many World. > > Now, let us be careful. Computationalism implies that we don't need to > assume more than the natural numbers and their + and * laws. So, strictly > speaking, it is a 0-world theory, or a 0-physical-world theory. With comp, > worlds "made-of-matter" are only a first person plural view, but then that > inside view is, from inside arithmetic, structured as a multiverse. So no > universe at all is "real", but our "physical universe" is not more real > than the "parallel universe". > > It is reassuring for me that you seem to have the same difficulties with > Everett than with comp's consequence. That is at least coherent. > Bruno - I'll answer your whole post before long, but happened to notice this concluding remark, which manages to a serious point, while a tickler in the belly region at the same time. Found myself giggling somewhat anyway, without that detracting from the sense you a point that has also not been lost on me, and has also been reassuring to me. So with all brevity aside old boy. It's right back at you. Except your problem is not coherence. It's that you have lost the capacity to dream or imagine yourself, not just not into my shoes to see what I mean, in terms of what's going on that my thoughts might have a coherence, but anyone's - that's my charge back to you. Anyone's except from inside your box of objects like comp, not-com. Exactly your definitions, exactly as you see the arising historically, all of it 'sright in your mind to the extend the very notion of something being amiss in the intrinsic underbelly of those definitions, whether in terms of how they came to be, in terms of how they might have been slightly different, or a lot different, in terms of what the other possibilities that were actually available and identified were, in terms of what sort of rigour - what standard - thse identification efforts were, in terms of what sortof threads were running through things then, in terms of assumptions, in terms of whether any continue to run through things now, in terms of what if any impacts or risks are possible at what level of probability. Endless Bruno, endless scope for bad, or big, or influential, unrealized totally fuck you upping eventually all defining, all your hard work up the backpassage internals destroying. Endless possible. That you endlessly fail to see, even in the mos minimal sense of getting some coherent notion what it is I've been repeatedly trying all manner of ways to make you see. But hey, that all off my chest, I'm back to good again. Blue eyes shining like before. Ready to keep talking, and keep trying. I think, or maybe this is the, that's it folks, from me. It has to come eventually I guess....death brings it if nothing else first. By the way, in context of my eventual death, I sure hope you were right Bruno, you above all the others too. The world that you see. Sure, it is diabolical and terrifying in all those ways, but then it is beautiful and astonishing and liberating and freeing in all those other ways, and how it's indescribable, undefinable, completely unimaginable - those other ways - and yet....there it is clear as day. Like the girl that's just so very, so awfully, painfully, pretty. As I am quite sure so too are you, your way. Peace.
-- 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/d/optout.
