But Joe, all science consists of 'models' in that sense. Models are validated by confirming with observable data and the power to accurately predict phenomena. Decoherence stands up to that test, many worlds doesn't..
Edgar On Oct 12, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > I won't say that I am dubious of that. I will say that it is pure Fiction. I > say it confidently, mind. > > I think you are taking models as Nature. Nature operates, or seems to. We > don't have a clue about how. There are no algorithms but yours. > > I hope there are Al Gore rhythms: is his heart still beating? > > I am a Philosophical Skeptic about Nature. We may learn the what's, but we > will not understand the language of the hows. How could we? We might model > the hows, but that's not the hows. That's a model. > > Not "mere semantics". > > ...A lot of "I"s in my reply. > > I bow out, now. > > --Joe / Scientist, but not a "creative" one / but I love SF as you do > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Chis, > > > > Many worlds is quackery. Decoherence resolves and falsifies all that > > several years ago. > > > > The universe is computational. It continually computes its current state of > > existence. Therefore it must have computational algorithms [snip] > >
