You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

smk comments on A case study in fooling oneself - Less Wrong Discussion

-2 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 15 December 2011 05:25AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (79)
Tags: psychology quantum rationality

Comments (79)

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

Comment author: smk 22 December 2011 09:08:46AM 1 point [-]

Pardon me for asking another physics dummy question. Does quantum roulette still make (theoretic) sense even if the "worlds" aren't actually distinct worlds?

Comment author: wedrifid 22 December 2011 09:19:30AM 0 points [-]

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'.

Comment author: smk 22 December 2011 09:41:24AM 1 point [-]

  1. Basically what Emile said about a "fuzzy continuum" and "just a high-level abstraction". The inkblottiness.

  2. 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.")

Comment author: wedrifid 22 December 2011 09:45:54AM 0 points [-]

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!)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit