tom

It's like Anaxemander and Pedocles never existed! Poor forgotten Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, except in France where he is regarded as the father of Evoluti...

I see. You don't have an argument, but you like playing buzzword bingo for points. Here are some buzzwords: Bell - local hidden variable theories do n...

Maybe you could briefly describe those theories and indicate to what extent they are capable of dealing with particle interactions etc.

It's difficult to address a criticism which is just a slur. Anyway, Kent doesn't like MW. His solution is to append some extra mathematical structure ...

So in a double-slit experiment with a particle, name the hidden variable. Name a non-local hidden variable theory that agrees with the results of quan...

What you have demonstrated is that you haven't the first clue what is meant by the term "hidden variable". Look it up!

Hidden variable theories are ruled out by the many no-go theorems: Bell, Leggett, Kochen-Specker, Free Will Theorem, PBR. There is no existing hidden ...

But you haven't addressed a single one of his arguments. Try this paper by Marletto. https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.03287 or this paper where Deutsch inve...

You might like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc From ~25mins for the purely QM stuff.

The universal machine can simulate every finite physical process.

it's not a claim, it is a testable deduction...for the umteenth time. Some intellectual honesty would be a peasant surprise!

It's only about machines.

Why is that a problem? Oh I get it, how do you know the machines exist when you're not looking at them.

That is almost funny. I made a list of the rather low-quality "criticisms" of many worlds, but I'm not sure where this fits in. It doesn't seem to fit...

It's just standard guff written about an theory whose sole purpose is obfuscation and denial. I really couldn't care less about it, so can't be bother...

Such joy being reduced to selecting quotes from the same wikipedia page! Copenhagen, and neo-Copenhagen theories such as Consistent Histories, are pur...

You are misrepresenting QM: Copenhagen - Wavefunction collapse does not occur. Many Worlds - Wavefunction collapse does not occur De Broglie-Bohm - Wa...

Denial is always an option. People do it all the time, just ask a creationist.

The point is that the mathematics that we can perform - including proofs - is determined by the laws of physics. This also goes for the computations t...

A rebuttal of what? The claim that Shor's algorithm does not require an astronomically vast number of parallel processing channels in or order to work...

He is explicitly opposed to that idea. You will enjoy the video, where he explains why.

The CTD-Principle is a discovery, that has been proved to hold for known physics. The discovery is that Reality has the surprising property of self-si...

You only need a quantum computer to simulate processes involving quantum coherence, so a laptop or something similar is all that is needed to exactly ...

The CTD-Principle is not contested, not even by Penrose. Can you spot Penrose's name on the paper that proved the CTD-Principle? http://www.daviddeuts...

But you know that is an understatement by a very long way! Ignoring the fact that our culture and technology is based on QM -we spend hours a day inte...

That is because you are a stranger to philosophy and reason.

The author of the book I recommended is a philosopher. David Wallace works in the philosophy department of Oxford Uni. Here he is talking. https://pod...

If you dismiss Many Worlds, what theory do you replace it with? Everett never mentioned Many Worlds in his publications, he focused on solving the mea...

That particular prediction is tested in every quantum interference experiment, and every experiment involving "non-locality". Quantum computing is als...

Many Worlds is the only interpretation of QM that exists. The other theories are either not testable or proved wrong: https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048...

Um, perhaps you've not been paying attention, but we know the other worlds exist because they interact with each other and with our world.

You could ask what problem does entanglement solve? What problem does superposition solve? What problem does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle solv...

...."led Everett..." I don't think you are even attempting to be honest.

But that isn't the first sentence, is it?

Try this paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033

You've clearly not been paying attention.

According to Everettian QM, the other branches are real. You are experiencing the other branches that you happen to be in. Your counterparts in other ...

All branches of the wavefunction are equally real.

That statement is obviously false. It is perfectly possible to reprogram yourself to will, or desire different things. People do it all the time.

That is wrong. There *are* models that we use that are non-computable, in the sense that they do not obey the CTD-Principle. Quantum mechanics obeys t...

Most number, overwhelmingly most, are non-computable. Most mathematical functions are similarly non-computable. No physics involves these numbers or f...

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is shown to be false* by the Free Will Theorem of Kochen and Conway. This is discussed in the 1st hour of the 6hr s...

Under realist no-collapse quantum mechanics, measurements are no different from any other type of interaction - they are reversible. In fact, it is th...

You can tell if certain physical laws are deterministic just by looking at them. In particular, if they are time-symmetric, then they are deterministi...

Sure, but can you find a single point of disagreement with Popper's realist epistemology?

Sure, that is HOW scientists create the images and WHAT they use the computing time for. Because visualisation is such a powerful tool, scientists go ...

But that is the actual image which confirmed the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Physicists spend a great deal of time and computing power creating images of what they are studying, including new fundamental particles: https://home...

All that means is that one has yet to read Popper.

That has nothing to do with spiritual ideas.