From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 10:11:51 MST
On Dec 11, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Dani Eder wrote:
> This isn't a physics list, but I do have a physics
> degree, so I'll make a comment here.
>
> I've never been happy with the many worlds hypothesis.
> It's an attempt to decribe the (to us) weird
> behaviour of the quantum realm, but I don't think
> it's the right one. I think us humans
> have a problem with perspective and our ability
> to describe what's going on.
I agree. We are primitives looking in a mirror who think there is a
parallel universe in there. It would explain the phenomenon, but it is
not the simplest or most correct explanation.
People choose to interpret many-worlds that way because they want to.
They want to live inside a simulation in the future. They want to be
instantly reconstructed in the end-times omega point. They want the
singularity to be a messianic rapture. They want to sit back and do
nothing, because everything will magically be done for them.
But it won't. We have to actually build the future we want. We can't
just philosophize, theorize or wish it into existence.
-- Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> CISSP, ISSAP, ISSMP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:50 MST