On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 9:11 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 4:29 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > *>>> You don't have to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding >>>> one apple to another apple in the bowl gives you two apples.* >>>> >>> >>> >> But what about an orange? If you're not a realist and so don't even >>> know if "orange" is a noun or an adjective, and the inside of the bowl is >>> already orange, then adding more orange will change nothing. And if an >>> apple isn't real then why does the bowl weigh more when there are two >>> apples in it then when there was just one? There is no doubt that the Born >>> Rule works, if you're not interested in understanding why it works then you >>> never have to bother with the Many Worlds idea. >>> >> >> *> I did say mathematical realist. One can believe apples and oranges >> really exist without being a mathematical realist!* >> > > According to Wikipedia "*mathematical realism is the view that > mathematical truths are objective and exist independently of the human mind* > ". I then asked the AI Claude and it said something very similar but > added that mathematical realists believe *"Mathematical statements are > objectively true or false. For example, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is always > true, independent of what any human believes about it*." So you *DO* have > to be a mathematical realist to believe that adding one apple to another > apple in a bowl gives you two apples. > That does not follow. Besides, mathematical realism is the belief that mathematical objects really exist. That might make statements about mathematical statements being objectively true or false, but that fact is not central, despite the ramblings on Wikipedia. *> Besides, many worlds gives no understanding of why the Born rule works > since the Born rule cannot be derived within MWI.* > You've made the same accusation before and I gave a detailed response as to why I think you are incorrect and why Many Worlds give a better understanding of why the Born rule is what it is than any other quantum interpretation. You didn't specifically refute anything I said, you just waved your hands around and said I was wrong. I don't recall you ever giving a sound argument in favour of this view. As I remember, you just wittered on about the Born rule being experimentally true, and therefore not in need of justification. I have pointed out that such a view is nonsense. You either have to make the Born rule an explicit additional assumption, or else derive it from something. You have not derived it from MWI. Bruce -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLT4APJosjtkFWSkW1iE8jyLhR6ZxZgki-EZbzsM54q5Jg%40mail.gmail.com.
