Nick_Tarleton comments on Return of the Survey - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Yvain 03 May 2009 02:10AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (58)
Tags: meta survey

Comments (58)

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

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 08 May 2009 04:27:22PM 3 points [-]

It doesn't make any predictions that are not made by the maths, so it can't be correct or incorrect.

It makes the null prediction that the standard laws of QM apply in all situations, as opposed at least to collapse interpretations, which predict that some systems that should stay coherent won't; this is getting more testable every day.

Comment deleted 12 May 2009 07:01:09PM [-]
Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 12 May 2009 07:55:36PM *  0 points [-]

Anyway, if you take the "collapse" interpretation of QM, that's a different mathematical theory, not merely a different interpretation pf the same maths.

Good catch.

Seriously, is there anyone left who actually believes in collapse any more?

Roger Penrose, at least (and he believes it for physical reasons, not because of his philosophy of mind).

Collapse actually looks better to me than anything else that's not MWI, though I haven't studied the issue in much depth – I don't understand what any interpretations besides MWI, collapse, and Bohm/hidden-variables are even saying ontologically, and Bohm has serious zombie problems.

Comment author: steven0461 12 May 2009 09:26:14PM *  1 point [-]

I don't understand what any interpretations besides MWI, collapse, and Bohm/hidden-variables are even saying ontologically

They all seem to reduce to many worlds, hidden variables, collapse, or gibberish.

and Bohm has serious zombie problems.

As Mike Price of the MWI FAQ liked to say, "Bohm+Ockham=Everett".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit