= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cyan comments on Request For Article: Many-Worlds Quantum Computing - 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 (55)
Using the same logic:
That's why Russel's teapot hasn't been falsified. We've barely managed to produce any evidence against it. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it's perfectly valid to explain it in terms of Russel's teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
The same "logic" would actually be:
Analogy fail.
Um, I did substitute directly into the text of the post I was quoting from.
I shouldn't need to spell this sort of thing out - but the main problem with both the Copenhagen interpretation and Russel's teapot is that they violate Occam's razor - not that there is observational evidence against them.
Your analogy fails to, well, be analogous if you include the first sentence of Warrigal's full argument. I don't disagree with you about Occam's razor; I just think you argued the point poorly.