Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Adirian comments on Affective Death Spirals - Less Wrong

31 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 December 2007 04:44PM

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

Comments (37)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Adirian 04 December 2007 01:12:39AM 0 points [-]

Nick - that proof works fine for any of the neorealist models, in which Everett's model is, variably, placed. The problem is in interpretation. Remember that there is great disagreement in the Copenhagen models about where, exactly, waveform collapse happens - after all, if one treats the quantum measurement device itself as being in a quantum state, then 100% correlation may be acceptable. (Because the waveform state of the computer wasn't collapsed until the first and third measurements were examined together.)

The real problem here is that the Copenhagen models are effectively unscientific, since it is fundamentally impossible to disprove the concept that anything that is unmeasured is in an uncertain/undefined state. It's an intellectual parlour trick, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Comment author: bigjeff5 11 February 2011 10:56:12PM 0 points [-]

Upvoted because, while I don't know the details of the Copenhagen models, if it is true they rely on "the concept that anything that is unmeasured is in an uncertain/undefined state", then until some method of testing this state is devised the theories are effectively pseudo-science.

The Popper essay, originally mentioned above, describes the problem nicely.

It doesn't speak to the truth or untruth of the theory, just to its scientific status, or lack thereof. In a nutshell, if it's not testable, it's not scientific, whether it is true or not. This is why it should not be taken too seriously, at least not until it becomes testable.