JGWeissman 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: dmfdmf 17 August 2009 10:41:02PM 1 point [-]

Of course my motives are irrelevant here but for the record I am trying to understand epistomology and its application to my self and, ultimately to AI. How about you, what are your motives?

Not knowing the exact details of where the PoC flaw is in QM is not a devastating criticism of my point, though your tone seems to suggest that you think it is. Why does the USPTO no longer accept applications for perpetual motion machines? Because it violates the first and/or second laws of thermo, no need to dig further into the details. This is just how principles work and once a fundamental error is identified then that's it, end of discussion.... unless I was a physicist and wanted to dig in and take a crack at resolving the QM quandries which I do not. Jaynes left us a pretty large clue that the PoC error probably lies in the mis-use of probability theory as he described. As a non physicist that's all (and more) than I need to know.

Comment author: JGWeissman 21 August 2009 01:55:36AM 1 point [-]

What principle do you believe that MWI is violating that is analogous to a perpetual motion machine violating conservation of energy?

In the case of the perpetual motion machine, it is easy to see that the described system violates energy conservation, because you can compare the energy in the system at different times. From this global violation, one can deduce that there was a mistake somewhere in the calculations that predicted it for a system that follows the physical laws that imply conservation of energy.

So, what is the global problem with MWI that leads you to believe that it has a PoC flaw?