= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The Correct Contrarian Cluster - 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 (228)
I don't understand how many worlds can be a slam dunk for someone who doesn't understand all the math behind quantum physics.
If a significant number of people who do understand this math believe that many-worlds is wrong, then no matter how convincing I find your non-mathematical arguments in favor of many-worlds isn't it rational for me to still assign a significant probability to the possibility that many worlds isn't correct?
Doesn't physics all come down to math, meaning that people who can't follow the math should put vastly more weight on polls of experts than on their own imperfect understanding of the field?
It is. However, a useful cc-factor metric would focus on topics for which you have a confident belief. If those you get the right answer to those slam dunk topics that you do happen to be confident in then your cc-factor will be high.