= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on A Critique of Leverage Research's Connection Theory - 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 (31)
Can't resist...
What is an example of a case you've actually observed where MWI made a falsifiable, bold, successful prediction? ("Falsifiable" - say what would have made the prediction fail. "Bold" - explain what a CI guy or random good human physicist would have falsifiably predicted differently.)
The call for such an actual prediction was based on the claim that
There is not necessarily a need for differing predictions to choose one explanation over another, which is why MWI isn't an analogous comparison. When two competing descriptions predict the exact same, you'd choose the simpler one, based on Occam's Razor.
Connection Theory, prima facie from the OP, introduces additional assumptions (additional complexity). As such, even if it reliably made the exact same predictions as previous models, it would be rejected on that additional complexity alone. Thus, CT needs to provide different and better fitting explanations than the hitherto standard, since on complexity grounds it cannot compete, unlike (purportedly) MWI.