= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Christian_Szegedy comments on Why Many-Worlds Is Not The Rationally Favored Interpretation - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (98)
My reply was mostly triggered by this sentence;
However, I'd be really curious which specific claim don't you agree with.
This is one of those times where 'agreeing to disagree' would save some frustration, but here is a list.
If Eliezer's claims are wrong his position is irrational, not merely an aesthetic preference. The "MW is more aesthetic" is a common position (as well as a politically appealing one) but Eliezer has made arguments that are quite clearly not aesthetic in nature.
Is that what the dragon in your garage told you?
I'd be surprised. I'd expect to have to wait till a generation (at least) died off or retired for that to occur on something that so violates entrenched intuitions. Even more so once a teaching tradition forms.
I also disagree with the embedded claim supported by the appeal to authority. I suspect our disagreement there could be traced to what we consider qualifies as 'objective'.
Thanks for the reply. I found it much more interesting than frustrating.
I also have to admit that I generally tend to believe scientific authority on scientific matters, at least in mathematics and natural sciences. Could be a defect of mine.
OTOH, In my reading, Eliezer never argued that there is a clear mathematical flaw in the classical theory of QM. (besides the ugly and ad hoc nature of the state reduction, which still does not make the theory mathematically unsound).
No implication of fallacious appeal intended. Just a reference to the claim that you didn't literally make.
I also rely on scientific expertise in scientific matters but have a different prediction on what it would take for new information on significant topics to become undisputed. It is possible that we also select scientific authorities in different manner. I tend to actively discount for the contributions of social dominance to scientific authority when I'm selecting expert opinions where there is disagreement.
I like the idea of de-emphasising distracting labels such as 'Many Worlds' and just sticking with the math and calling it QM. There are the (Born, etc.) equations behind quantum mechanics with which we can make our predictions and that's that.
I assert that adding a claim such as 'most of the information in the function is removed in way that allows the math to still work' is an objective scientific mistake that is not merely aesthetic. I think you disagree with me there. Similar reasoning would also claim that including a mathematically irrelevant garage dragon in a theory makes it objectively unsound science. Likewise on 'there gazillions of fairies who hack the quantum state constantly to make it follow Born predictions'.
My positivist personality disagrees, my Platonic personality agrees with you.
I would even go as far as saying that the ad-hoc state-reduction performed at seemingly arbitrary points is clearly a technical (not just philosophical) defect of the classical view.
On the other hand, the incompleteness of the MW description (not accounting for Born probabilities) is an even more serious practical issue (for the time being): it does not allow us to make any quantitative predictions. If we inject the Born "fairies", back to the theory then we will arrive at the same problem as the classical formalism.
So I'd agree to some extent with the OP, that the most probable future resolution of the problem will be some brand new even more elegant math which will be more satisfactory than any of the above two options.
More details on just how those born probabilities work is the area of physics I would most like answers on. It could greatly clarify the foundations of my utility function!
(PS: Downvote of parent not by me.)