Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2870

Re: The halting problem revisited

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/04/2011 01:26, javax.swing.JSnarker wrote:
> On 30/03/2011 5:35 AM, Michal Kleczek wrote:
>> javax.swing.JSnarker wrote:
>>> 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 :)
>> ).
>
> But there is no parallel world "assumption". There is a parallel world
> *conclusion* from the Schroedinger equations, *absent* a *collapse*
> assumption.
>
> And there is no evidence for the need for a collapse assumption.
>
> Ockham's Razor applies to the complexity of the theory's *hypotheses*,
> not its *conclusions*.
>
> In fact, the general preferred theory for phenomenon X should be:
>
> * Of those that do not make already-falsified predictions
> * Of those that explain the most already-observed phenomena
> * Of those with the fewest hypotheses
> * The one with the greatest number of consequences
>
> The first point eliminates outright-wrong theories.
>
> The second prefers the theories that predict not only X but as many
> other phenomena as possible -- so, Maxwell's electromagnetism to
> separate theories of electricity and magnetism, and quantum
> electrodynamics to either. Essentially, the ones with greatest
> explanatory power regarding what we already know.
>
> The third is Ockham's razor.
>
> The fourth prefers, among equally-simple theories, the one that will
> have the greatest predictive power regarding what we still *don't* know.
> In particular, it's probably the easiest to falsify, because the more
> yet-untested consequences the theory has, the more opportunities the
> universe (or an experimenter) has to prove it wrong.
>
> Whereupon it gets eliminated by the first point in the list above, the
> is replaced by its first runner-up in the competition. :)
>
>> 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
>
> Funnily enough, there is. In case a), but not in case b), you can
> potentially create interference patterns in cat alive-or-dead-ness. :)
>
>> But I think don't really follow and I am not capable of discussing it
>> further. It may be because:
>> a) my English is not good enough to comprehend such advanced discussions
>> b) I don't have enought background - do you have some pointers that would
>> introduce me to the concepts you're talking about?
>
> http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Quantum_Physics_Sequence
>

MWI subjectively verifiable by suicide

-- 
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

Thread

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