= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Comment comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - 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 (600)
Ahh, that would explain why a non-answer is the accepted one. Was this non-answer written by LWer by chance?
Rest of sequence is no better. Photon going in particular way is not really 'configuration' with a complex amplitude, I am not even sure the guy actually understands how interferometer works or what happens if length of one path is modified a little. Someone who can't correctly solve even a simplest QM problem has no business 'explaining' anything about QM by retelling popular books.
You clearly do not have enough g-factor:
When people are at their most charming, they are pretending.
Rationalism? I see. This would explain why the community would take that seriously instead of pointing and laughing.
Scott Aaronson is a not, as far as I know, a LWer, though he did an interview with Yudkowsky once on QM. He disagrees with him pretty substantially.
I don't disagree?
It's possible.
No, the other rationalism, rationality. My bad.
Was a joke.
Are you sure? I've seen posts speaking of 'aspiring rationalists'. It does make sense that rationalists would see themselves as rational, but it does not make sense for rational people to call themselves rationalists. Rationalism is sort of like a belief in power of rationality. It's to rationality as communism is to community.
Believing that the alternate realities must exist if they are a part of a theory, even if the same theory says that the worlds are unreachable, that's rationalism. Speaking of which, even a slightest non-linearity is incompatible with many worlds.