Paul_Crowley comments on Decoherence is Simple - Less Wrong

20 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 May 2008 07:44AM

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

Comments (57)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Paul_Crowley 06 May 2008 09:53:17AM 0 points [-]

Tomorrow I will address myself to accusations I have encountered that decoherence is "unfalsifiable" or "untestable", as the words "falsifiable" and "testable" have (even simpler) probability-theoretic meanings which would seem to be violated by this usage.

Doesn't this follow trivially from the above? No experiment can determine whether or not we have souls, but that counts against the idea of souls, not against the idea of their absence. If decoherence is the simpler theory, then lack of falsifiability counts against the other guys, not against it.