Unfortunately your “rightness” is rather hollow, because you still have no definitive experiment that would convince your opponent. And so the argument becomes philosophical rather than physical, as it cannot be resolved by the scientific method.
If your argument can be resolved by the scientific method, then why even bother arguing? You're often not that lucky. Should the government be bigger or smaller? In principle, you could randomly sort the 50 states into three groups where you increase the budget of one, decrease the budget of another, and leave the last as a control, but nobody's going to do that.
If your argument can be resolved by the scientific method, then why even bother arguing?
To come up with an argument which can be tested experimentally. At least in physics, which is the subject area here.
You're often not that lucky.
Alas.
Should the government be bigger or smaller? In principle, you could randomly sort the 50 states into three groups where you increase the budget of one, decrease the budget of another, and leave the last as a control, but nobody's going to do that.
Ah, but there are other ways. There are 200 other countries in the ...
Sean Carroll, physicist and proponent of Everettian Quantum Mechanics, has just posted a new article going over some of the common objections to EQM and why they are false. Of particular interest to us as rationalists:
Very reminiscent of the quantum physics sequence here! I find that this distinction between number of entities and number of postulates is something that I need to remind people of all the time.
META: This is my first post; if I have done anything wrong, or could have done something better, please tell me!