ike comments on 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Less Wrong

88 Post author: Yvain 26 October 2014 06:05PM

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

Comments (724)

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

Comment author: ike 27 October 2014 01:13:43AM *  2 points [-]

On the meaningless of MWI, you may find this post useful. It cleared up a lot of points for me.

Comment author: Bugmaster 28 October 2014 03:21:09AM 1 point [-]

It didn't do much for me :-(

If there's no way for me to figure out whether there's a chocolate cake inside of the Sun or not, then I might as well assume there's no cake, because this makes the math easier. I see MWI vs. no MWI the same way, but apparently that's the wrong answer...

Comment author: ike 29 October 2014 02:17:47AM 0 points [-]

What about the question of whether something not in your light cone still exists?

Also, assuming something to make the math easier does not mean that it is meaningless. It may have little utility to calculate it if your utility function only counts things that affect you physically, although you'd still need the general rules for priors for things that can only be tested long term but influence decisions made short term.

Comment author: jdgalt 01 December 2014 10:40:58PM 0 points [-]

I think I see what you are trying to say, but I don't think the Boltzmann Cake Theory is comparable to Many Worlds.

In the Boltzmann Cake case, it may be impossible to physically test the theory (though I don't conclusively assume so -- there could well be some very subtle effect on the Sun's output that would facilitate such a test), but the question of fact it raises is still of objective fact.

But the truth or falsity of the Many Worlds Theory can only exist in a reference frame which spans the entire conceptual space in which the many worlds would have to coexist. And I don't believe such a frame can exist. The very fabric of logic itself requires a space-time in which to exist; without one (or extending beyond one) its very postulates become open to doubt.