= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on [SEQ RERUN] Science Doesn't Trust Your Rationality - 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 (24)
How does one make sure that this "probability-theoretic calculation" is not a "different armchair reasoning"?
This seems like a safe assumption. On the other hand, trusting in your powers of Solomonoff induction and Bayesianism doesn't seem like one: what if you suck at estimating priors and too unimaginative to account for all the likely alternatives?
Again a straw-collapse. No one believes in faster-than-light quantum "collapse", except for maybe some philosophers of physics.
Totally agreed. Thing is in general incomputable, how much more you need not to trust yourself doing it correctly? Clearly you can't have a process that relies on computing incomputable things right. I'm becoming increasingly convinced, either via confirmation bias, or via proper updates, that Eliezer skipped helluva lot of fundamentals.
Speed of light or slower collapse, applied to spatially separated measurements of entangled particles, seems even more ridiculous.
The collapse model says that after performing a local measurement, the wavefunction locally evolves from the eigenstate that has been measured, nothing else. For a local observer spacelike separated events do no exist until they come into causal contact with it. That's the earliest time that can be called a measurement time.
That sounds like mind projection fallacy. That the observer does not know about the events doesn't mean they don't exist.
That would imply that whatever measurements we make locally, from the perspective of an observer who hasn't yet interacted with those measurements, our wave function hasn't collapsed yet, and we remain in superposition.
So, how does it make sense that the wave function has collapsed from our perspective?
"Exist" should be a taboo word, until you can explain it in terms of other QM concepts.
For a thing to exist, it means that thing is part of the reality that embeds our minds and our experience, whether or not that thing has an effect on our minds and our experience. Of course when I say something exists, it is a prediction of my model of reality. And you might ask how I can defend my model in favor of an alternative that says different things about events with no effect on my experience, and my answer would be that I prefer models that use the same rules whether or not I am looking, in which my reducible mind is not treated as ontologically fundamental.
"Reality" is another taboo word. We have no direct QM experience.
If there is a single lesson from QM, it is that looking (=measurement) affects what happens. This has nothing to do with minds.