ok thanks HF for the clarification. I didnt realize
all the recent threads on tegmark were also referring
to a tegmark-wheeler article.
fyi, here is the quote from gribbin. I havent noticed,
but is everyone aware of this book? good stuff.. from 1984,
a bit dated, but it keeps getting reprinted apparently
because its so superb. gribbin is a big advocate of MWI in
a later chapter cites a lot of early science fiction ideas
relating to it. he's got a phd in astrophysics. very good
on the conceptual history/foundations of QM.
p246
perhaps it is only fair, at this point,
to mention that wheeler himself has recently expressed
doubts about the whole business. in response to a questioner
at a symposium held to mark the centenary of einstein's birth,
he said of the MWI, I confess that I have reluctantly
had to give up my support of that POV in the end,
much as I advocated it in the beginning--because I m
afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage.
this shouldnt be read as pulling out the rug from under
the everett interpretation; the fact that einstein changed
his mind about the statistical basis of QM didnt pull
the rug from under that interpretation.
as for your point in your post about wheeler attaching
his name to the theory, I think its ok for proponents
and not originators of a theory to be named along with it.
for example lately Ive been referring to the
fredkin-wolfram thesis. fredkin is far more the
originator; wolfram is far more the proponent. seems
to me the everett-wheeler theory can be fairly seen in the
same way.
btw, I recently finished deutschs fabric of reality
which imho is really outlandish unfocused in places.
after reading it I thought he earned the nickname
mad scientist heh heh
