= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on The Dilemma: Science or Bayes? - 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 (185)
Leaving phrasing aside, it's worth drawing a distinction between things that have no actual effect on the world and things it's impractical for me to currently observe.
A process that leads more reliably to correct conclusions about the former is perhaps useless.
A process that leads more reliably to correct conclusions about the latter is not.
Unfortunately, this is not what OP argues. There is no hint of suggesting that MWI may be testable some day (which it might be -- when done by physicists, not amateurs). The MWI ontology seems to be slowly propagating through the physics community, even Sean Carroll seems to believe it now. Slide 34 basically repeats Eliezer almost verbatim.