shminux comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (6th thread, July 2013) - Less Wrong

21 Post author: KnaveOfAllTrades 26 July 2013 02:35AM

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

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: shminux 26 July 2013 05:02:10PM 0 points [-]

Just wondering what your area of research is.

I've actually never read the quantum physics sequences, as I deal with quantum physics on a daily basis I didn't think I had much to gain.

Eliezer's point is that his QM sequence, resulting in proclaiming MWI the one true Bayesian interpretation, is an essential part of epistemic rationality (or something like that), and that physicists are irrational at ignoring this. Not surprisingly, trained physicists, including yours truly, tend to be highly skeptical of this sweeping assertion. So I wonder if you ever give any thought to Many Worlds or stick with the usual "shut up and calculate"?

Comment author: pan 26 July 2013 05:13:19PM 4 points [-]

My research is in quantum optics and information, more specifically macroscopic tests of Bell's inequality and applications to quantum cryptography through things like the Ekert protocol.

I didn't realize that the quantum mechanics sequence here made such conclusions, thanks for pointing that out, maybe I'll check it out to see what he says. I've given some thought to many worlds, but not enough to be an expert, as my work doesn't necessitate it. From what I know, I'm not so convinced that many worlds is the correct interpretation, I think answers to the meaning of the wave function collapse will come more form decoherence mechanisms giving the appearance of a collapse.

Comment author: Halfwitz 26 July 2013 09:32:05PM *  3 points [-]

I think answers to the meaning of the wave function collapse will come more form decoherence mechanisms giving the appearance of a collapse.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that the official many-world's position - that decoherence provides each "you" with the appearance of collapse?

Comment author: shminux 26 July 2013 11:03:11PM 3 points [-]

Decoherence is a measurable physical effect and is interpretation-agnostic. "Each you" only appears in the MWI ontology. pan did not state anything about there being more than one copy of the observer as a result of decoherence.

Comment author: Halfwitz 27 July 2013 04:03:04AM 1 point [-]

That makes sense; are you a physicist, too?

Comment author: shminux 27 July 2013 04:42:09AM 0 points [-]

Trained, not practicing.