JGWeissman comments on [SEQ RERUN] Science Doesn't Trust Your Rationality - Less Wrong

5 Post author: MinibearRex 05 May 2012 06:37AM

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

Comments (24)

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

Comment author: JGWeissman 06 May 2012 03:20:56AM -1 points [-]

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.

Comment author: shminux 06 May 2012 05:10:22AM -1 points [-]

For a thing to exist, it means that thing is part of the reality that embeds our minds and our experience,

"Reality" is another taboo word. We have no direct QM experience.

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.

If there is a single lesson from QM, it is that looking (=measurement) affects what happens. This has nothing to do with minds.