[ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change

Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com
Sun Dec 1 04:54:41 UTC 2019

I agree. Also, one needs some kind of visual, intuitive understanding (even
if very imprecise) of what is really going on, otherwise one gets stuck.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:56 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> *> QBism is a valid interpretation of QM. It uses all the same maths
>> and leads to the same answers. However, it suffers from the same
>> problems that Copenhagen and other epistemic interpretations suffer from.*
> I agree. Neither QBism or Copenhagen even attempts to answer any
> ontological questions, they claim if you can make good predictions then
> your work is done, both are really just slight variations of the Shut Up
> And Calculate Quantum Interpretation; and that's fine if you're just
> interested in engineering considerations and don't care about understanding
> the nature of being.
>  John K Clark
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191201/b45d1289/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list