Re: Conservation Laws and MWI
- On Jun 29, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Bill Taylor wrote:
> Elliot Temple wrote:But physics deals with light and photons rather directly.
> ->>> ...MWI... explains bending of light in water,
> ->> Do we really need MWI to explain refraction?
> -> A very rough explanation is that light moves in the path of least time
> -> due to quantum effects...
> -> MWI is the best (and only viable) explanation of quantum physics.
> This is a classic case of ignoring the issue of "emergence".
> It somewhat akin to claiming that physics explains meiosis, or that
> chemistry explains musical talent. Both of these could be claimed by
> an uncompromising reductionist, but in both cases the world at large,
> including the intellectual world, would say it was being silly with usage.
You can read about this stuff in physics books like Feyman's _QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter_.
(That QED stands for Quantum Electrodynamics, but the book isn't as scary as that might sound. It's prose heavy, math lite.)
You cannot read about how to acquire musical talent in physics or chemistry books because in that case the connection is distant instead of direct.
-- Elliot Temple
- --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
> As for modulat inteligence,Modular intelligence is not a symptom, it is the theory that specific
> this once again can be explained by the fact
> that some knowledge requires other knowledge to create it.
bits of neural wiring are needed for specific tasks. That is completely different to the observation that some kinds of knowledge are pre requisites for others