spqr0a1 comments on [SEQ RERUN] Beware Stephen J. Gould - Less Wrong

6 Post author: MinibearRex 18 October 2011 02:35AM

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

Comments (6)

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

Comment author: spqr0a1 18 October 2011 05:18:42AM 3 points [-]

How so? That is insight I would like to see. QM does not come readily to my mind from this post.

Comment author: Vaniver 18 October 2011 12:44:43PM 9 points [-]

Eliezer's presentation of QM seems like stealing chaos to me. Articles like this come to mind. At the very least, I suspect he magnifies the amount of chaos in physics- the default position at my school was "shut up and calculate" agnosticism, and quotes from prominent physicists suggest that's been a significant (if not the dominant) position for a long time.

Comment author: Logos01 20 October 2011 03:35:13AM 2 points [-]

... from a comment of his on that self-same thread:

If you're postulating new fundamental physics, things that don't show up microscopically but do show up macroscopically, to explain the Born statistics, there would be a hundred better possibilities that don't violate Special Relativity.

I've never understood why the many-world-ers don't see that their particular 'interpretation' is equally as guilty as CI of violating basic physical laws and creating more problems than it solves in general (note: I'm saying both MWI and CI are equally invalid). Ahh, well.

Comment author: mkehrt 22 October 2011 04:50:28AM 0 points [-]

I'm fairly convinced that MWI is LW dogma because it supports the Bayesian notion that probabilities are mental entitites rather than physical ones, and not on its own merits.

Comment author: Logos01 22 October 2011 09:30:11PM 0 points [-]

Certainly Eliezer seems enthralled with the notion. Beyond that I have no opinions on the matter.