= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DavidSteglet comments on Problems of the Deutsch-Wallace version of Many Worlds - 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 (93)
Here are some additional sources criticizing the decision-theoretic approach by Deutsch and Wallace:
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: Can Savage Salvage Everettian Probability? Huw Price's critique.
Probability in the Everett World: Comments on Wallace and Greaves Huw Price again
Decision Theory is a Red Herring for the Many Worlds Interpretation Jacques Mallah's thorough rebuttal of the approach by Wallace et al.
Everett and the Born Rule Alastair Rae's rebuttal.
One world versus many: the inadequacy of Everettian accounts of evolution, probability, and scientific confirmation Adrian Kent's contribution
This guy has me at the title. To be honest I'd be satisfied with it even if the contents consisted of "No, realy, wtf are these guys smoking? They have this all backwards!"
Indeed. I do think Mitchell Porter (and some of these authors) are right in that you need frequency of worlds. It is very hard to see how you could make sense of probabilities without them. It's been 50 years trying to solve this problem without any succes, I think that speaks volumes.