Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2580
| From | "javax.swing.JSnarker" <gharriman@boojum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem revisited |
| Date | 2011-03-30 04:41 -0400 |
| Organization | media lab? |
| Message-ID | <imuqc8$a3j$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <8vef1uF8n9U1@mid.individual.net> <imt71n$jtj$1@news.albasani.net> <8ver27F5ouU1@mid.individual.net> <imtt7r$csp$1@speranza.aioe.org> <imuo94$jo1$1@news.onet.pl> |
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. > 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). -- public final class JSnarker extends JComponent A JSnarker is an NNTP-aware component that asynchronously provides snarky output when the Ego.needsPuncturing() event is fired in cljp.
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