Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on The Dilemma: Science or Bayes? - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 May 2008 08:16AM

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

Comments (185)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 May 2008 04:25:00AM 3 points [-]

Ah, but Mitchell, the collapse interpretation doesn't explain why the Born probabilities are what they are.

So the version of many-worlds that I believe in, as a predictive theory, is:

(1) The wavefunction is real and evolves unitarily.
+
(2) For some unknown reason, experimental statistics match the Born probabilities.

In combination, these statements constitute a predictive theory.

As for the objection that (2) hasn't been explained, collapse "explains" it by tacking on, "And the reason for (2) is that parts of the wavefunction spontaneously vanish faster than light for some unknown reason, leaving only one survivor because we like it that way, and in the lone survivor, for some unknown reason, experimental statistics match the Born probabilities." If you look closely, this explains (2) by strictly containing it.