komponisto comments on Common sense as a prior - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Nick_Beckstead 11 August 2013 06:18PM

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

Comments (212)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 August 2013 06:03:59PM 3 points [-]

Scott Aaronson was already reading along to it as it was published. If we paid David Deutsch to read it, I expect him to just say, "Yeah, that's all basically correct" which wouldn't be very in-depth.

From those who already disagree with MWI, I would expect more in the way of awful amateur epistemology delivered with great confidence. Then those who already had their trust in a sane world broken will nod and say "I expected no better." Others will say, "How can you possibly disregard the word of so great a physicist? Perhaps he knows something you don't!" - though they will not be able to formalize the awful amateur epistemology - and nod among themselves about how Yudkowsky failed to anticipate that so strong a reply might be made (it should be presumed to be a very strong reply since a great physicist made it, even if they can't 100% follow themselves why it is a great refutation, or would not have believed the same words so much from a street performer). And so both will emerge strengthened in their prior beliefs, which isn't much of a test.

Comment author: komponisto 12 August 2013 10:28:56AM *  5 points [-]

convince a top-level physicist to read the MWI sequence

Scott Aaronson was already reading along to it as it was published.

Scott Aaronson is not a physicist!

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 August 2013 03:13:58PM 5 points [-]

I'd expect him to notice math errors and he specializes in the aspect of QM that I talk about, regardless of job titles.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 12 August 2013 04:19:22PM 3 points [-]

Still, it diminishes the effect.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 August 2013 01:11:32AM 1 point [-]

Nnnoo it doesn't, IMO.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 13 August 2013 02:03:02PM 4 points [-]

The effect of authoritative validation? The difference between professional physicist qua physicist, as opposed to quantum-computing-aware computer scientist, would not be small. Even if Scott Aaronson happens to know quantum mechanics as well as Feynman, it's difficult to validate that authority.

Comment author: komponisto 13 August 2013 02:08:36AM 2 points [-]

Job titles aside, I think you had an incorrect model of his intellectual background, and how much he knows about certain subjects (e.g. general relativity) as contrasted with others (e.g. P and NP). Also (therefore) an incorrect model of how others would view your citation of him as an authority.

That said, I think you were right to think of him as an authority here and expect him to notice any important errors in your QM sequence.