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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #2865

Re: The halting problem revisited

Show all headers | View raw

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

-- 
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

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