= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielFilan comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions - 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 (269)
In case you care about that in order to know which respondents know what they're talking about when answering the MWI question, that's a very poor choice (as I mentioned two years ago IIRC). It basically mostly only checks whether people took QM classes (in many of which interpretational issues are discussed hardly at all) and can remember the tricks to solve second-order differential equations in spherical coordinates. Asking whether people can prove Bell's theorem would be a much better choice. (You should weigh Scott Aaronson's opinion about MWI over mine even though I'm a physicist and he isn't.) Having read How the Hippies Saved Physics, I'd guess that if anything ability to solve the SE for the H atom would anti-correlate with trustworthiness about interpretations of QM when controlling for work status, profession and degree.
Seconded.
Fair enough. In that case, I'll request a question as to whether you can prove Bell's theorem. I guess I was lucky that in my university, interpretational issues were discussed a fair bit in later-year theoretical physics classes.