[ExI] Bell's Inequality
atymes at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 05:40:25 UTC 2016
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Because the alternate explanations to MWI aren't testable. It may seem
>> unlikely that all the other worlds don't exist - but there is nothing
>> observable that definitely would or would not be true if it just so happened
>> that, for whatever reason, only the set of quantum choices that happen in
>> the world we wind up in are the ones that happen.
> ### So what is the "whatever reason" you are talking about?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:37 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is the difference between MWI vs. its alternatives, and solidEarth
>> vs. hollow Earth: the latter is testable; the former is not.
> Which alternative explanation for the quantum world's weird behavior is more
> testable than Many
> Worlds? I don't know of any.
Okay, are you guys just trolling me now? Those are asinine objections.
"For whatever reason" means "I'm not specifying a specific reason
here". Given that, I fail to see how, outside of willful ignorance,
you could conclude that I am specifying a specific reason that can be
When I say MWI and its alternatives are not testable (as opposed to
the difference between solid Earth and hollow Earth, which is
testable), I mean that MWI and its alternatives are not testable, not
that I propose some alternative to MWI that is testable.
You are giving me the strong impression that you refuse to engage in
honest debate. We are talking about very nuanced topics here, so if
you're just going to assume that I mean something other than the plain
meaning of my words, there's no point in continuing.
> ### You seem to think that taking math seriously (as in accepting MWI)
I say that MWI does not appear to be "taking math seriously". I have
yet to see any mathematical proof of MWI. (Which is not to say that
one can't take math seriously and also believe MWI, just that these
appear to be distinct.)
> ### Not if there was an appropriately structured interface layer between the
> hollow core and the mantle.
Such an interface layer would need matter densities roughly that of a
black hole, and as such would be a black hole and suck in the rest of
the Earth. It has been directly observed that the outermost layer of
the Earth (which would have been sucked in after the rest was) is not
a black hole, so that theory seems to be disproven.
More information about the extropy-chat