= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tyrrell_McAllister comments on Shock Level 5: Big Worlds and Modal Realism - 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 (140)
I understand that that is the intuitive idea. But how is the hypothesis to be formulated in such a way that we could evaluate its probability, even in principle?
I wrote this some years ago: Sink the Tegmark!. As you can see, I share your skepticism as to whether there's enough sense to be made of Tegmark's theory that we can derive empirical predictions from it.
Even so, you should definitely read Tegmark's original papers - he does address this question somewhat.