= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on A case study in fooling oneself - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (79)
The inkblot is a good way to demonstrate what a "wrong question" is. The charitable (and literal) reading of his words does not attribute to that comment any particular claim about quantum mechanics.
The QM question, while it is somewhat wrong, is not one to just be dismissed as wrong. An explanation of roughly how the wavefunction works is appropriate.
Pardon me for asking another physics dummy question. Does quantum roulette still make (theoretic) sense even if the "worlds" aren't actually distinct worlds?
I would need to know more about what you mean by "aren't actually distinct worlds". Also what you mean by 'makes sense'.
Basically what Emile said about a "fuzzy continuum" and "just a high-level abstraction". The inkblottiness.
I mean is it a coherent concept given the inkblottiness? (I don't mean is it a sensible thing to do. I already read your post where you said "I personally consider anyone who wants to play quantum roulette to be crazy.")
I would answer 'yes'... QR still makes the same amount of sense under those circumstances as it ever did. (ie. It 'works' but gives undesirable outcomes!)
I support this interpretation. It's a good analogy to demonstrate the concept of a wrong question, full stop.