Philosophy Now Forum

The man said "Well, in order for that to take place, one would have to presume that all of the quantum phenomena and events that have taken place in the completely separate universe in which Carroll's copy jumped to the left, would have somehow managed to stay in perfect synchronization with a...

What he said isn't an inconsistency in mwi anyway, it's yet another of his own inventions about what he likes to imagine mwi says I think I'll have to disagree here. Standard MWI says that the worlds of the Many worlds are both connected and separate at the same time, it's a self-contradiction. The...

You're pointing out one of the (several) logical inconsistencies within standard MWI. That's fine, but not really what I was talking about. I simply said that new universes don't keep hopping into existence, and Carroll said this too. What he said isn't an inconsistency in mwi anyway, it's yet anot...

Who wants your help? You just made that up. "Entirely new, yet fully formed" - that's just made up by you, in your head. The fact that YOU have that confusion, and the confusion you made up above, despite neither one coming from the actual scientists, suggests that you haven't mentally ex...

We're talking about a theory that suggests that an entirely new, yet fully-formed/fully-matured universe - springs into existence simply to accommodate the position of a single electron or photon. And if people like Flannel Jesus, for example, cannot see how the sheer weight of the absurdity of tha...

Yes. I can't even work out what exactly it is he's 'campaigning' about. A pompous know-it-all who makes up his own 'scientific' terms :lol: He's trying to stop Islam. He thinks that his version of a Kantian-Buddhist antirealism will stop Islam by making Muslims realize that Allah doesn't exist. Wel...

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA. Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who ...

Nobody should be deciding if QM definitely supports "anti-realism" by reading a post on a philosophy forum, certainly not a post by VA. Some QM experts think QM supports some kind of anti-realist world view, some (most, apparently) do not. Sean Carroll is a great example of an expert who ...

Carroll's Many Worlds tries to solve QM a bit like this: We keep drawing circles and keep calculating pi, to see whether pi is always 3.14159..? And yes, it always turns out to be 3.14159.. no matter how many circles we draw, no matter where we draw them. But why is it 3.14159.. and not some differ...

Carroll's Many Worlds tries to solve QM a bit like this: We keep drawing circles and keep calculating pi, to see whether pi is always 3.14159..? And yes, it always turns out to be 3.14159.. no matter how many circles we draw, no matter where we draw them. But why is it 3.14159.. and not some differe...

Atla, can you develop your point? Because it seems counter-intuitive... if these galaxies really represent a stage of the universe so young, elementary arithmetic implies that they must have been relatively that much closer to the centre; there wouldn't have been much outside of that light-year rad...

For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the o...

For the Nth time: QM is thought to be grounded on antirealism only by those who insist that QM is 4-dimensional (but physicists nowadays think that over 4 dimensions are more likely), and insist that QM's inherent relative nature is tied to the conscious observer (but physics has no idea what the ob...

Funny that they are both accusing the other of arguing for some kind of independent soul, when neither of them is doing so.

Ah, that's okay. I'll explain: The main difference is that "insult" is one of the causes and "offence" is a possible effect. How do we know if someone has taken offence at something? Only by listening to them and observing their anger. How do we know something is an insult? By r...