From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 07:22:37 EDT
I never cease to be amazed that people ignore what is written. I present a
means of testing MWH and this is the reaction:
Don wrote:
>Nothing they say is ever worth losing sleep over
>unless it can be directly tested, and my gut tells me no one is ever going
>to figure out how to test directly for multiple worlds. So I regard
>discussions of MWs as a form of entertainment.
Richard wrote:
>But seriously folks ... the argument that quantum computers require "real"
>resources in alternate universes seems to be an empty and untestable claim.
This is not serious scientific discussion or even criticism. 'Gut feels' are
irrelevant in science, and ignoring suggestions which have passed peer
review and been published (for which I gave entre to the literature in the
post) seems to be hiding one's head. Calling it mere entertainment is
reminiscent of Copernicus putting in his book that his view was merely a
calculating technique. Once again, I would challenge both of you to take on
Deutsch's claim which I believe is in "Quantum Theory, the Church-Turing
Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer,' Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London A 400(1985), pp 97-117, and then get your refutations
published. It is a cheap out to claim that this idea is wrong when you are
unwilling to do the work to show why it is wrong and get it published.
Without a doubt one might find something wrong with Deutsch's test, but just
saying a 'gut feel' or claiming that it is untestable, seems highly
unscientific. The scientific thing is to explain exactly why that test won't
work. If you actually read what I quoted from Brown's book the experiment
gives a different result for the 2 different views of quantum. That means it
is TESTABLE. Deutsch's article does have the computer world thinking about
these things. And regardless of whether or not we christians want to deal
with the implications, theologically, they are there.
1. IF MWH, then hell is full of an infinity of unsaved vs the 1 saved
individual. It means that God saves everybody with a plan to condemn the
vast, vast majority to hell.
2. Why evangelize. This is the same issue one runs into with predestination.
If you are predestined, what is the point. the problem, in my view becomes
more accute under MWH
3. If MWH, then is that the best way God can ensure what happens in the
future?
4. There must be universes where God's predictions fail, i.e. where Jesus
didn't come.
5. Are there universes where Jesus married?
6. Are there universes where Jesus sinned?
7. Would such a situation falsify christianity?
There are lots of theological implications. And claims that this can't be
tested, in spite of my pointing you to where the idea is published, seems to
imply that evidence and data don't count here, just gut feel and claims.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 07:23:52 EDT