whowhowho comments on If Many-Worlds Had Come First - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 May 2008 07:43AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (179)
Tags: humor philosophy science

Comments (179)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: whowhowho 12 February 2013 08:41:48PM 1 point [-]

So there is no need to use the term "real" except maybe as a shorthand for the territory in the map-territory model (which is an oft useful model, but only a model).

FYI, "territory" means "territory", not map.

. On the other hand, you can probably agree that removing objective reality from one's ontology would make MWI an unnecessary addition to a perfectly good model called relational quantum mechanics.

Model of what? If you subtract the ontology from an interpretation, what are you left with knowledge of?

Comment author: shminux 12 February 2013 09:23:42PM 0 points [-]

If you subtract the ontology from an interpretation, what are you left with knowledge of?

A basis to build a testable model on.

Comment author: whowhowho 12 February 2013 09:28:25PM 0 points [-]

In this and your previous comment, you write as though as though rQM is a different formalism, a different theory, leading to different results. It isn't.

Comment author: hairyfigment 12 February 2013 09:39:03PM -1 points [-]

In principle rQM could suggest a different mental picture, and one better capable of inspiring further models that will make successful predictions. (Assuming shminux's bizarre positivist-like approach admits the existence of mental pictures.) The "better capable" part seems unlikely to this layman. Feynman's path integrals have a very MWI-like feel to me, and Feynman himself shared that impression when he wrote the book with Hibbs. But since paths that go back in time seem to pose a problem for Eliezer's causality-based approach, perhaps shminux has some reason for preferring rQM that I don't see. I'm still betting against it.

Comment author: shminux 12 February 2013 09:42:51PM 0 points [-]

Feel free to quote the statement that led you to such a strange conclusion.

Comment author: whowhowho 13 February 2013 12:09:19AM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, you can probably agree that removing objective reality from one's ontology would make MWI an unnecessary addition to a perfectly good model called relational quantum mechanics.

and

A basis to build a testable model on.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit