Fwd: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Forwarded Message In July 2011, participants at a conference on the placid shore of Lake Traunsee in Austria were polled on what they thought the meeting was about. You might imagine that this question would have been settled in advance, but since the broad theme was quantu

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 18 Feb 2015, at 17:36, meekerdb wrote: Forwarded Message In July 2011, participants at a conference on the placid shore of Lake Traunsee in Austria were polled on what they thought the meeting was about. You might imagine that this question would have been settled

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Brent, What's your position on the MWI? Best, Telmo. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > > Forwarded Message > > In July 2011, participants at a conference on the placid shore of Lake > Traunsee in Austria were polled on what they thought the meeting was ab

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > > > > Forwarded Message > > In July 2011, participants at a conference on the placid shore of Lake > Traunsee in Austria were polled on what they thought the meeting was about. > You might imagine that this question would have be

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Well contrary to his title... he doesn't ask a question but assert it is a fantasy... and he just uses an argument of disbelief... well ok, but that's not an argument... he also talks about splitting with universes created at every interaction, everywhere, without entertaining the differentiation p

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

I'm not happy with an article that deliberately picks on the use of "favourite" to make a spurious argument. It's obvious what was meant - would "preferred" have been better, or "considered most likely" ? That sort of intellectual dishonesty isn't a good start. Then the phrase in the title - "why

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emerge. Brent On 2/19/2015 2:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Brent, What's your position on the MWI? Best, Telmo. On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:36 PM, meekerdb

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emerge. > So which interpretation do you prefer? Presumably one that takes the math less seriously. Jason

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emerge. > So which interpretation

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > > I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a > Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emer

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/19/2015 5:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > I think it's taking the mathematics

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > > I think it's taking the mathematics too seriously (but then I'm not a > Platonist). When QM is integrated with GR something different may emer

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 19 Feb 2015, at 22:05, LizR wrote: I'm not happy with an article that deliberately picks on the use of "favourite" to make a spurious argument. It's obvious what was meant - would "preferred" have been better, or "considered most likely" ? That sort of intellectual dishonesty isn't a go

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/20/2015 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > I think it's taking the mathematic

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: QM + collapse is inconsistent (with a great variety of principle, like computationalism, God does not play dice, no spooky actions, etc.). Principles of Platonist faith. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is a theorem of comp, also. The many worlds, in his relative state formulation, is already a consequence of computationalism. By church thesis, *all* computations are emulated in all possible ways in elementary arithmetic, with a typical machine-in

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: QM + collapse is inconsistent (with a great variety of principle, like computationalism, God does not play dice, no spooky actions, etc.). Principles of Platonist faith. You don't need any faith to di

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: QM + collapse is inconsistent (with a great variety of principle, like computationalism, God does not play dice, no spooky actions, etc.). Principles of Platonis

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

rything-list Sent: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it is? It seems like a fairly standard assumption by many scientists and philosophe

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > QM + collapse is inconsistent (with a great variety of principle, like > computationalism, God doe

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

> > > > > -Original Message- > From: meekerdb > To: everything-list > Sent: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 4:17 pm > Subject: Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic > > On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: QM + collapse is incon

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. >> > > For it to be extraordinary, it would have to be beyond ordinary. However > computationalism isn'

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Computationalism is an extraordinary claim.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it is? Yes.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wr

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and instantiate all possible thoughts - and a lot of other stuff. That's arithmetical realism, not computationalism. However, to believe in the notion of Turing machines or Turing

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

ll classified (?) we have no way to analyze the veracity. As for MWI, it appears inescapable and very strange. -Original Message- From: Jason Resch To: Everything List Sent: Sun, Feb 22, 2015 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic Whether or not nuclear winter was a real phe

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/20/2015 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >> > I think it's taking the mathema

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 22 Feb 2015, at 23:52, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing- emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it is? It seems like a fairly standard

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 00:32, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: QM + collapse is incon

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. For it to be extraordinary, it w

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing- emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:38, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/20/2

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and instantiate all possible thoughts - and a lot of other stuff. That's arithmetical realism, not computationalism. However, to believe in th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

why bother? Refutation is not possible, if the phenomena does not exist, or, alternatively, its a profound fact of existence and thus, harder to measure and identify?? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 11:47 am Subject: Re: Philip Ball, M

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 09:07, Telmo Menezes wrote: I would argue that the history of science tells us that humans tend to err on the side of assuming too much uniqueness in what they observe. I agree. Despite even Nature illustrates how much she likes to do things in the many: many atoms, m

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/23/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb mail

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb > Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Brent: I am no 'skeptic' I just seek some basis WHY to believe? JM On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/23/2015 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and instantiate all possible thoughts - and a lot of other stuff. That's arithmetical reali

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/23/2015 11:51 AM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: I am no 'skeptic' I just seek some basis WHY to believe? What kind of basis? utility? perception? What would you consider a suitable basis? And why do you want to believe? Is it more than just deciding how to act? Brent -- You received th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > You seem to take the same view as LizR, "You're either for my theory or > you're for a contrary theory." > > You started it, dear. Since you've already acted many times as though my agnosticism is really "supporting" a theory you happen to disagree

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential > quantifier provides the same "exists" as ostensive physical existence. > That is clearly not being suggested by comp. Comp suggests that physical existence is "maya" - an appearan

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/23/2015 12:58 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb > wrote: But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential quantifier provides the same "exists" as ostensive physical existence. That is clearly not being suggested b

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

fering. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 11:47 am Subject: Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exis

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meeker

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb Computationalism is an extraordinary claim. The claim that what goes on inside brains is

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 23 Feb 2015, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2015 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and instantiate all possible thoughts - and a lot of other

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/24/2015 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb > Computatio

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 Feb 2015, at 17:47, meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 20:46, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/23/2015 12:58 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb wrote: > >> But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential >> quantifier provides the same "exists" as ostensive physical existence. >> > > That is

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:10:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >Suppose, as people on this list have sometimes proposed, that we > >and the world we perceive is a digital simulation in a computer > >vastly more powerful than the ones we've built. Suppose this > >computer is 1e500 bit machine.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb > wrote: And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem to have done well with it for a century. If you can accept randomness due to ignorance which can never be informed, why not

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >> And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem >> to have done well with it for a century. If you can accept >> rand

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> >> wrote: And I don't see

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 , LizR wrote: >What would be a suitable underlying means by which the universe might > operate, that it makes things happen at random? > Huh?? You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" is a brute fact..I don't find it astounding that some things

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> LizR wrote: >> >> On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb >

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"! No it's not. It provides an explanation of how the world can be completely deterministic b

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"! No it's not. It provides an explanation of how

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"! No it's not. It provides an e

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: And I don't see anything incoherent about true randomness. We seem to have done well with it for a century. If you can accept randomness due to

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 25 February 2015 at 10:52, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 February 2015 at 14:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle >> unknowable"! >> >> No it's not. It

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 05:03, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 , LizR wrote: >What would be a suitable underlying means by which the universe might operate, that it makes things happen at random? Huh?? You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" is a brute

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 08:06, meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in-principle unknowable"! No

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 08:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: First person indeterminacy is just another name for "in- princ

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 24 Feb 2015, at 23:00, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 08:10:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Suppose, as people on this list have sometimes proposed, that we and the world we perceive is a digital simulation in a computer vastly more powerful than the ones we've built. S

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable". Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that the MWI interpret this in term of many world. But I am OK with your statement, a

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable". Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that the MWI interpret this in term of

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" > is a brute fact.. > > How can you know that. This is equivalent with saying "we will not try > to understand". > If there is something to understand about why X happened, if

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence it is likely that Bell's theorem doesn't require quantum mystical nonlocal nonre

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In particular one has to solve the basis problem I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it. The relative subjective state does not depend on the base. That is precisely the problem. There are an infinite nu

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/25/2015 1:02 PM, LizR wrote: Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence it is likely that Bell's theorem doesn't r

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 , meekerdb wrote: >> Bell's theorem, as Bell made clear, allows realism and locality if the >> laws of physics operate in a time symmetric manner. All the known laws of >> physics do, apart from the mechanism underlying neutral kaon decay. Hence >> it is likely that Bell's th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an > infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see > superpositions of positions? > > Bruce But we do! Whenever the two slit experiment is performed, f

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/24/2015 10:28 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Bruce Kellett < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au > wrote:

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle >>> unknowable". >>> >> >> >> Well, usually we say that the SWE formalizes that fact, and that th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/25/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unk

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see superpositions of positions? Bruce But we do! Whenever the two slit experiment

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:44:25PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Russell Standish wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an > >>infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we not see > >>super

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" is a brute fact.. > How can you know that. This is equivalent with saying "we will not try to understand". If there is some

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In particular one has to solve the basis problem I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it. The relative subjective state does not depend on the base. That is

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:44:25PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:31:53AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: An eigenfunction in one basis is a superposition (potentially an infinite superposition) in any other basis. Why do we n

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In particular one has to solve the basis problem I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it. The relative subjective state does not depend o

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: On 2/25/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: MWI simply formalizes the fact that such data are "in-principle unknowable". W

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 Feb 2015, at 12:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Feb 2015, at 12:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In particular one has to solve the basis problem I disagree. It seems to me that Everett already solved it.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: On 2/25/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2015, at 22:52, Bruce Kellett

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 26 February 2015 at 23:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 25 Feb 2015, at 19:36, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> You've got to think what "random" means, nothing made "it" happen, "it" >> is a brute fact.. > > >> > How can you know that. This is equivalent

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: > MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. > > Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability > interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore the > need for the Born rule or they suppose it can be derived fr

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb > wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Feb 2015, at 05:36, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/25/2015 7:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 24 Feb

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb wrote: > >> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >> >> Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability >> interpretation to the density matrix.

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb > wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability interpretation to the density matrix. But Everettista's either ignore th

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >>> >>> MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse. >>> >> >> Only because it assumes the Born rule applies to give a probability >> i

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 7:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote: But it assumes the Born rule provides the relative measure - which is more than just the SWE. You can solve the problem of branch counting by assuming infinitely many parallel worlds - but then that raises the problem of defining "probabi

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Jason Resch wrote: There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a big problem defining collapse. Collapse is easily defined. So at what point d

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> Jason Resch wrote: >> >> There's no problem defining probability. There is, however, a >> big problem

Re: Philip Ball, MWI skeptic

On 2/26/2015 7:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/26/2015 3:16 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 February 2015 at 10:01, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: MWI predicts the same as QM+collapse.

  1   2   3   >