= 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)
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.