= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
tzachquiel comments on [LINK] The Wrong Objections to the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - 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 (101)
I'd like to see the best anti-MWI/Everett article out there.
That's a good point; would anyone be interested in a follow-up sequence to the quantum physics sequence that presents arguments on all sides equally (at least, as equally as a biased individual can present them)? Eliezer sort of set up many worlds as the obvious hero and the Copenhagen interpretation as a weak enemy; there are more modern interpretations such as Quantum Bayesianism and pilot wave theory that are harder to dispel.
Yes, contingent on finding a good author.
Also, note that this poll is subject to heavy selection pressure based on who read the comments on this article.
It doesn't have to be one contributor, N authors could put the case for N alternatives to MWI.
Assuming that the question means "would you be interested" and not "does there exist at least one person in the multiverse who would be interested".
Yes, let's assume that.
:|
I'd be even more glad to read an article that specifically is against MWI/Everrett (or whatever you call it).
David Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse, Interludes I and II, presents both sides but in the end is pro-MWI.
A coherent, intelligent, reasonable article by an advocate of the other side would make things clearer.
Thanks, I completely forgot polls were a thing one could do.