timtyler comments on Bloggingheads: Yudkowsky and Aaronson talk about AI and Many-worlds - Less Wrong

18 Post author: Vladimir_Nesov 16 August 2009 04:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shirisaya 17 August 2009 08:16:25PM 1 point [-]

On the issue of many-world, I must just be slow because I can't see how it is "obviously" correct. It certainly seems both self consistent and consistent with observation, but I don't see how this in particular puts it so far ahead of other ways of understanding QM as to be the default view. If anyone knows of a really good summary for somebody who's actually studied physics on why MWI is so great (and sadly, Eliezer's posts here and on overcomingbias don't do it for me) I would greatly appreciate the pointer.

In particular, two things that I have a hard time wrapping my head around are: -If multiple worlds really are "splitting" from our own how is this accomplished without serious violations of mass and energy conservation. (I'm sure somebody has treated this somewhere since it's so basic, but I've never seen it.) -Even assuming everything else is fine, the actual mechanism for which world diverge has to be spelled out. (Maybe it is somewhere, if so please help me end my ignorance.)

I'll admit that I haven't actually spent a great deal of time considering the issue, but I've never come across answers to basic questions of this sort.

Comment author: timtyler 18 August 2009 10:38:21AM *  0 points [-]

It mostly revolves around the idea of collapse. There's no expermental evidence for a collapse. In the MWI, there's no collapse. If we find evidence for a collapse someday, we will have to discard the MWI. However, people have been looking for a while now - and there's no sign of a collapse so far. So, applying Occam's razor, you get the MWI - or something similar.