On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 5:40 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
* > If there were something to account for it, it wouldn't be random.* > *Correct. * > * > It seems you only feel ignorance type randomness is not absurd.* > *In general I don't think ontological randomness is absurd because I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, BUT in science it's not wise to invoke it if it is not necessary to do so, and in Many Worlds and Pilot Wave it is NOT, but in Objective Collabs it IS necessary. As for Copenhagen (a.k.a. shut up and calculate), **nobody cares if it's ontologically random or not because either way they still get the same reading on their voltmeter. * *Every quantum interpretation can happily coexist with epistemological randomness (even classical physics can do that) but some can't exist without ontological randomness, however Many World is not one of those. * > > *> that's why libraries have bigger fiction sections than physics > sections. :-)* > *Good point! I sometimes wonder if some of the more abstruse areas of mathematics are the equivalent to Harry Potter stories, the only difference being one of them is written in the language of mathematics and the other written in the language of English; both can be entertaining if you know the language but neither has a relationship with the physical world. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* afm -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2dO36-o-nGWFm5qkcN4ohOM4TCsn7UD-JV-KWrCGT%3Dzw%40mail.gmail.com.
