Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2595
Show key headers only | View raw
On 30/03/2011 10:35, Michal Kleczek wrote: > javax.swing.JSnarker wrote: > >> On 30/03/2011 4:05 AM, Michal Kleczek wrote: >>> javax.swing.JSnarker wrote: >>>> Or we can posit that Wigner's friend is also a "material device", in >>>> which case you realize that Wigner's friend just gets replicated into >>>> parallel worlds, and so does Wigner, and so does everyone eventually. >>> >>> I'm not an expert in all this stuff at all but my thinking is: >>> If existence of parallel Wigners cannot be disproved experimentally (by >>> definition of "parallel") the whole idea is not really science anymore. >>> Since Wigner is not able to verify existence of parallel Wigners then by >>> applying Ockham's razor he should just ignore them (and try another >>> explanation which would be more scientific). >> >> Ockham's Razor requires us to accept the *simpler hypothesis*. If we >> assume only what's already proven about QM, e.g. the Schroedinger >> wave-function evolution, then parallel Wigners fall out of that >> naturally. We have to posit something *extra* (a collapse mechanism) to >> get *rid* of them. >> >> Absent experimental evidence one way or the other we should prefer the >> theory *without* a collapse postulate. >> >>> You cannot easily say "commonsense intuition is wrong" because then your >>> sentences about real world become meaningless. >> >> Non sequitur. >> > > How about: if a theory leads to conclusions that are not verfifyable by (or > even contradictory to) "common sense" ( Myself ) - it means the theory is > useless (hence parallel world assumption is useless - hence there are either > a) other sentences more useful "falling out" from QM or b) QM is useless :) > ). > >>> It is not that easy to get rid of "the existence of some dude whose name >>> rhymes with Todd" :) >> >> How about the observation that any phenomenon in the universe that has >> no detectable effect at all has no practical significance and may as >> well not exist; whereas if it has detectable effects, those effects can >> be partially modeled, at least statistically. The model, if made as good >> as possible, should end up as a mixture of structured behaviors, with >> patterns to them, and a random noise source of some sort. >> >> The model of the structured behaviors, however, amounts to a >> naturalistic explanation of those aspects of the phenomena more or less >> by definition. And what's left over is unstructured noise! >> >> This leaves no room for the supernatural in *any* form. A sufficiently >> good model crushes it between the parts explained naturalistically and >> the parts that are just noise. In fact, MWI QM even gets rid of the >> noise, simply making it a lengthy bit-string parameter that varies >> across the many worlds; the noise we observe is then just a reflection >> of our uncertainty as to which bit-string our particular universe has >> (even after we've observed an arbitrarily long prefix of it). >> > > My point is that if "parallel world" theory cannot get rid of "the noise" in > "this world" it is of no use to me. There is no difference between > uncertainty of > a) which world I am in > b) the cat was dead or not a couple of hours in the past The real problem coming is that theories are just data compression algorithms, and science looks for the most efficient. AIs may well do a far better job of creating them, but they won't be "human friendly" explanations of "whats going on". -- Dirk http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-29 14:05 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-29 20:43 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-29 20:24 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 10:05 +0200
Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-03-30 04:41 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 11:35 +0200
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 07:38 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:48 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 10:35 -0700
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 19:46 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <lew@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-30 13:24 -0700
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-31 00:04 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-31 00:00 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:28 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:44 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:26 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-04-05 01:32 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:42 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2011-03-31 08:31 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:41 +0100
Re: The halting problem revisited "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> - 2011-04-04 20:34 -0400
Re: The halting problem revisited Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> - 2011-03-30 15:38 +0100
csiph-web