lessdazed comments on 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey - Less Wrong

77 Post author: Yvain 01 November 2011 06:28PM

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

Comments (694)

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

Comment author: lessdazed 07 November 2011 05:28:20AM 2 points [-]

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/

Comment author: jdgalt 08 November 2011 12:51:14AM 0 points [-]

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?

Comment author: thomblake 08 November 2011 01:04:58AM 3 points [-]

The first "sentence" isn't a sentence or even coherent.

Yes it is. Maybe this rephrasing would help:

So let me state my understanding with the inflection of a question so you know it requests a response... 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 && MWI]) then (MWI is "objectively meaningless").

Comment author: jdgalt 13 November 2011 10:57:19PM 0 points [-]

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.

Comment author: thomblake 14 November 2011 04:54:42PM 0 points [-]

You should re-write this as a reply to the person who made those claims.