PhilGoetz comments on Why Many-Worlds Is Not The Rationally Favored Interpretation - Less Wrong

15 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 29 September 2009 05:22AM

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

Comments (98)

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

Comment author: PhilGoetz 02 October 2009 01:31:23AM *  0 points [-]

It was the best theory to explain the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiments.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 October 2009 02:38:03AM 0 points [-]

Saying that relativity is "the best theory" is not very different from saying that it won. Stuart says that it won because it was simpler than Lorentz contractions. It was not widely believed to be the best theory in 1915. What happened between then and now? Was it obviously better and the old guard just had to die? Or did something else that happened, like the Nobel or GR change people's minds?

I'm not sure that Lorentz's transformations were more ad hoc than Einstein's, though Minkowski's were a definite improvement. If Einstein's principle lead to Minkowski's work, that's good, and meets Vladimir's usability criterion; and probably counts as simplicity.

Comment author: Stuart_Armstrong 02 October 2009 05:43:47PM 1 point [-]

Lorentz contractions are special relativity. My understanding was that Einstein's great role was unifying and putting under one roof the various add-hoc results.