On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 9:24 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> In general I don't think ontological randomness is absurd because I >> know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, BUT in >> science it's not wise to invoke it if is not necessary to do so, and in >> Many Worlds and Pilot Wave it is NOT,* >> > > *> But notice that no instance of randomness is "necessary" in the above > sense if you simply posit there are branching worlds where everything > happens. * > *Many Worlds does NOT say everything happens, it says everything consistent with Schrodinger's equation happens. Even if there are an infinite number of worlds in NO world does an electron turn into a proton because that would violate the laws of charge conservation, mass/energy conservation, boson number conservation, and lepton number conservation*. *> This was the viewpoint of Max Tegmark for a while until Bruno sharpened > the viewpoint to "everything computable" happens.* *Unless he's come up with better ideas since he left the list it's hard for me to believe that Bruno had ever sharpened anybody's viewpoint.* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* mbd -- 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/CAJPayv2XX9rHW_u9QZSQq_WEEa5_o9KsHmPYUWONbJzPrjSg7A%40mail.gmail.com.
