<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2016 at 13:05, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class=""><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sat, William Flynn Wallace </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​> ​</div>I agree that no action is random, but maintain that all actions are determined.</blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">​There is nothing in logic that demands every event have a cause, quantum mechanics says true randomness exists and from experiment, specifically the observation that Bell's inequality is violated, we know that AT LEAST one of the following 3 concepts about the universe must be untrue:</font></div></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">1) Determinism (everything has a cause and thus nothing is random)</font></div></div><div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> </font></div></div><div><font size="4"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">2) Locality (the </div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">future can not change the past and distance diminishes the strength and speed of an effect<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​)​</div></span></font></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></span></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">3) Realism (</div></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">things are in a definite state even if they <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​are not being observed) ​</div></span></font></div><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I'd like all three<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​to be true </div>but if I had to give up one of them (and I do)<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ then​</div> I'd give up </span><span class="m_1236454139973913027gmail-il" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">determinism<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​; </div></span><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​t​</div>o my mind it would be the least disturbing, and giving up <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​realism​</div> would be the most disturbing<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​.​</div> <div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​But</div> the universe may not agree with me so for all I know all 3 may be false<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​.</div></span></font></div><div><br></div><font size="4"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​If ​</div>the Everett<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div>interpretation<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ is true then ​</div></font><font size="4">from a point of view that<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ can </div><div style="display:inline">not</div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div>exist, like the viewpoint<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div>of<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ ​</div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​</div>somebody<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div></font><span style="font-size:large">standing outside</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">of</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">the multiverse looking</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">back in</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">at it</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​, </div><span style="font-size:large">all 3 of those attributes, locality</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​</div><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">determinism and realism,</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">can exist together;</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">but </span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​say I said ​</div><span style="font-size:large">that is a viewpoint that can not exist<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​.​</div></span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">So </span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​that's like </div><span style="font-size:large">saying if 2+2=5 then 2+2+2=7.</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">From the viewpoint of any observer anywhere in the multiverse ( in other words from any possible</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">o</span><span style="font-size:large">bserver) determinism locality</span><div style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ </div><span style="font-size:large">and realism cannot all be true, at least one must be wrong.<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">​ <br></div></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The latter is what Bruno Marchal has called the "first person indeterminacy". The multiverse is entirely deterministic, but an observer embedded in the multiverse will see intractable randomness, because he does not know in which branch he will end up, and not even God can tell him. <br></div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>
</div></div>