= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on 2012 Survey Results - 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 (640)
Just wanted to point out a few fallacies in the above:
"can solve the Schrodinger Equation" means nothing or less without specifying the problem you are solving. The two simplest problems taught in a modern physics course, the free particle and a one-dimensional infinite square well are hardly comparable with, say, calculating the MRI parameters.
self-reporting "can solve the Schrodinger Equation" does not mean one actually can.
even then, "can solve the Schrodinger Equation" does not mean "understand quantum mechanics", as it does not require one to understand measurement and decoherence, which is what motivates MWI in the first place.
Basically, I hope that you realize that this is a prime example of "garbage in, garbage out". I suppose it's a good thing that there was no correlation, otherwise one might draw some unwarranted conclusions from this.
I'm assuming that the question was meant as a simple and polite proxy for "Does your knowledge of quantum mechanics include some actual mathematical content, or is it just taken from popular science books and articles?"
Probably. The reason he mentioned the Schrodinger equation was likely an attempt to quantify it. I am arguing that the threshold is set too low to be useful.
The question was specifically about the SE for a hydrogen atom. But I agree that having good PDE-fu isn't necessarily a good proxy for anything else.
If the correlation had come out the other way, you'd be jumping on it as proof of your thesis that LWers favor MWI because they are sheepishly following Eliezer. In what universe where they are indeed sheepishly and ignorantly following him does a question like that show nothing whatsoever?
Probably (though not a proof, just one piece of evidence). I suspect that "garbage in" is the reason why we don't see it, but I do not have a convincing argument either way, short of asking Eliezer to post an insincere message "I no longer believe in MWI", take the survey soon after, then have him retract the retraction. This would, however, be rather damaging to his credibility in general.
The actual survey specified "can solve the Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom". Although it is not exactly synonymous with "understands quantum mechanics", you would expect them to be highly correlated.
Right, sorry, I forgot that qualifier since the time I took the survey. It does imply more familiarity with the underlying math than the simplest possible cases. Still, I recall that when I was at that level, I was untroubled by the foundational issues, just being happy to have mastered the math.
I wonder if there is a way to test this assertion. One would presumably start by defining what "understands quantum mechanics" means.
When I was learning to solve the hydrogen atom, they didn't even talk about the foundational issues, just waved it off with some wave-particle duality nonsense. But still, it seems like as good a criterion as you're going to get, unless you want to ask if people have a Master in Physics (Quantum).
I suppose that a better question would be related to the EPR paradox, but I'm not sure what academic course would cover it.
I suspect asking about density matrices might be a better test.
I gave you a tentative upvote because this comment sounds very plausible, but since I don't know how to solve any version of the Schrodinger Equation, I'm going by more general priors.
Sure. It is very reasonable to put some trust (but probably not too much) in what EY says about MWI if your experience shows that he is not out to lunch in the areas of your expertise. Assuming that is what you mean by "more general priors".
That wasn't at all what I had in mind, though Eliezer's generally high level of intelligence and meticulousness makes MWI seem a little more likely to me.
No,my strongest general priors in play are that it's likely that there are different degrees of understanding the Schrodinger Equation, that people might kid themselves about how well they understand it, and that there's more than one take on MWI. My prior for there's more to understanding MWI than the Schrodinger equation is a little weaker, but not much.