From: Dan Fabulich (daniel.fabulich@yale.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 30 1999 - 09:21:58 MST
At 02:02 PM 3/30/99 +0100, Bryan Moss wrote:
>(The reason I asked the original question was because I had been given the
>impression that MWI gave a better explanation of the observer problem than
>other interpretations. Clearly it does not.)
I really have to disagree here. MWI DOES give a better explanation of the
existence of randomness: it demonstrates that what appears random isn't,
and explains why it would appear random anyway. What more would we want
from such an answer?
-Dan
-IF THE END DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS-
-THEN WHAT DOES-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:26 MST