On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> We've been over this many many times before as I'm sure you remember, >> and yet you STILL bring out that same silly argument even though you must >> know by now it's invalid.* > > > > *Then explain it, instead of just asserting it. * > *As I've said, you've asked me to explain that many many times before, and I've explained it many many times before. If you think you've found a flaw in some part of my explanation then point it out and then I'll either explain it better, fix the flaw, or admit that you found a problem with Many Worlds that I hadn't considered before. But don't keep asking me the exact same question over and over again. * *> Do you have a reference?* > *Try "S**omething Deeply Hidden" by Sean Carroll, it's a wonderful book, one of the best I've ever read and I read a lot. You can get it on Amazon: * *Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime <https://www.amazon.com/Something-Deeply-Hidden-Emergence-Spacetime/dp/1524743038/ref=sr_1_1?crid=29TO97QJTFVZR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7cAMnJ2fF0tBQfI_cALH9HnmuVcZpycO5qEAA6IK2LPyuLZyHcPyaFUz0l8liBtkVqBvbflDCSwSdTHOd685MhS4ZEt0-vG_5RPT4iaJgvSRwnci1FeNhi9vNvugXXqeykGl2Cvat7KVYhiWtIyHcIPT-FNp2aAT1i4RCwJdklbG9XWe7ueND57O5YxLCo3f1-gTr0Pytr1ORCEMg4A-tOqTehd-YYt_Xi_QhkabTJQ.7PX05zZ8mB5A6IHPWilrM7VzW0Mi8_liM40uDWEmorc&dib_tag=se&keywords=Something+deeply+hidden&qid=1754816882&sprefix=something+deeply+hidden+%2Caps%2C175&sr=8-1> * >> *>> 1) Many Worlds does NOT insist that the number of worlds is equal to >> the number of points in a line. * >> *2) Many Worlds does NOT insist that the number of worlds is equal to the >> number of countable integers.**3) Many Worlds does NOT insist that the >> number of worlds is an infinite number at all.* > > > *> So you say. * > *So says every serious advocate of Many Worlds on the planet! And the same thing could be said about every serious opponent of Many Worlds. And both previous statements remain true even if you include #4 which for some reason you left out:* *"4) Many Worlds does NOT say that probabilities can be obtained by counting branches."* *Maybe Many Worlds will turn out to be wrong, but if it is it won't be because of one of those four things. * > *>But it is an implication of the fact that the probability of decay per > unit time is constant. * > *Not if there are only a finite number of units of time, and nobody knows if time can be divided up into infinitely many different infinitely small pieces or not, Many Worlds is agnostic on the subject. If it's found out that time can be divided up that way then that would be the first time that science, as opposed to pure mathematics, has found an infinite number of ANYTHING.* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 4f2 > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2BLWXTX-jf_5wW4F1fjsA9NZwzkaFSVXgFHxKdRQEkUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
