= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jdgalt comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - 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 (694)
It's a logical consequence of the premises. The instant there's a split, all branches except the one you're in become totally and permanently unreachable by any means whatever. If they did not, the conservation laws would be violated.
If all other interpretations made testable predictions, it wouldn't be enough unless you could somehow eliminate any possibility that didn't make the list because nobody's thought of it yet. It's like the fallacy in Pascal's Wager: all possible religions belong in the hat.
So if for thousands of years science can't think of anything better than hidden variables of the gaps, collapse at a level we can't detect because of its scale, and MWI, MWI is "objectively meaningless"? If somehow the room for hidden variables is eliminated, and the collapse is falsified, it's still "objectively meaningless"?
It's scientifically meaningless, maybe, but that's like saying evidence is inadmissible in court because it results from a search conducted without a warrant. It doesn't imply the crime wasn't committed by the culprit. http://lesswrong.com/lw/in/scientific_evidence_legal_evidence_rational/
I can't make sense of your reply. The first "sentence" isn't a sentence or even coherent.
But perhaps I myself could have been clearer by saying: The instant there's a split, all branches except the one you're in effectively cease to exist, forever. Does that help?
Yes it is. Maybe this rephrasing would help:
I don't know what you mean by "science can't think of anything better".
I'm simply using the standard that a statement is objectively meaningful if it states some alleged objective fact.
I reject the notion of hidden variables (except possibly the core of oneself, the existence of the ego) as un-Bayesian. With that one potential exception, all objective facts are testable, at least in principle (though some may be impractical to test).
I fail to see how one can be rational and not believe that. I'm not saying this to insult, but to get an explanation of what you think I've overlooked.
You should re-write this as a reply to the person who made those claims.