Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "javax.swing.JSnarker" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: The halting problem revisited Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:26:09 -0400 Organization: media lab? Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <8v727mF46lU1@mid.individual.net> <8vbuiaFbm7U1@mid.individual.net> <8vd51lFlq1U1@mid.individual.net> <8ve17fFto9U1@mid.individual.net> <8vedndFt19U1@mid.individual.net> <8vef1uF8n9U1@mid.individual.net> <8ver27F5ouU1@mid.individual.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: cSaA1Ciwnz/i+ORWJNRxkg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:2865 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.