RE: SSA

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:09:19 +0100

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
>Jacques wrote:
>>Newsflash: If a theory predicts something, and it's found to be
>>true, that's evidence for the theory. If it's found to be false, or that
>>what is observed is atypical of what the theory predicts, that's evidence
>>against the theory.
>
>Newsflash (2): if 2 theories predict the same thing, and it is found to be
>true, that is evidence for neither theory.

        Are you saying that the MWI does not predict immortality, or that
a single world theory does predict it? The former would make sense since
immortality is observationally false, but I didn't think you'd come around
so easily.


        Good grief, Jacques - for the umpteenth time: of course it does not
predict immortality any more than classical physics does. But you will end
up as one of those exceedingly unlikely, one in 10E500000... Jacques's that
happen to survive for an aeon. Even then you will have no better proof of
MWI than you do now.

        Immortality is no more 'observationally false' than the statement
'you will become a petunia in six minutes'. After six minutes, you may
challenge that statement (in those universes in which you are not a petunia
and have not lost your power of communication in another way). And after
infinity you may challenge my statement that you are immortal.

        If anything, the fact that you are alive lends support to the
hypothesis that you will not die. You have never been observed to die in the
past.

        James
Received on Thu May 13 1999 - 02:07:50 PDT