= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux 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)
I think that EY has played a cruel joke (or maybe it was a rationality test for the readers), where he misrepresented an active area of physics research as an open-and-shut case of the MWI being the One True Teaching. (The alternative is an unthinkable weirdtopia: EY failed at rationality?!?!)
Were it not for the Quantum Physics sequence, the LWers would not bring the issue up as often, given the many many other active areas of (Physics) research that are just as deceptively simple to an uninitiated.
Consider, for example, an alternate universe where the great rationalist Zainab Al-Arabi runs a forum she named Not As Misguided, where she advocated, among other things, that the Universe is obviously shaped like the Poincaré dodecahedral space, even though it has never been tested, and many other shapes fit the data just as well. The forum participants, NAMers, few of whom have the necessary background in the area, nevertheless engage in an occasional heated debate about the right shape of the Universe, frequently referring to ZAA's other teachings for justification.
Even though I'm partial to the Everettian interpretation, I've always thought Eliezer's advocacy of this interpretation was pretty overblown. Part of the problem is that he frequently represents Copenhagen (or rather, the simplified textbook version of Copenhagen) and MWI as the only available options. If that's the contest, then MWI clearly wins, but there are many many interpretations out there that are superior to Copenhagen. Perhaps Eliezer has studied these and has sound reasons for rejecting them, but I doubt it.
Many of the same arguments apply elsewhere, and Eliezer has discussed such application in the comments, e.g. going after Bohm on similar complexity grounds (real wave function vs real wave function and particles) and nonlocal FTL effects (yes, conveniently structured so that they can never be made use of).
The arguments don't apply to interpretations that don't require a real WF or real collapse, and EY has struggled with them,.
There are interpretatiions simpler than both CI and MWI which EY has not had time to study
For what it's worth, I more or less agree with Eliezer about RQM.
Which ks unfortunate, since he does not understand it. He has studied N interpretation,s, and declared that MWI is the One True Interpretation , although there are others not included in his N.
I know you're saying that ironically, but I'll take the bait and state clearly that there's nothing unthinkable or particularly astonishing about Eliezer failing at rational thinking in some instances. In my opinion, both the insistence on MWI and the heavily kool-aidish emphasis on evo-psych are examples of such failures in the sequences.
This gives me a (trivial) update in the direction of MWI! (ie. A higher correlation between critics of Eliezer's rather uncontroversial evo-psych position with critics of his MW position makes the MW position slightly more plausible.)
Is that not a species of the "Hitler was a vegetarian" argument?
No. If it was then the species "Hitler was a vegetarian" would be would be valid - which would thereby make the Hitler reference a mere Godwin violation.
I think the reality is that Eliezer Yudowsky, while a very bright mind and great man in terms of rationality, has overstepped his limits when it comes to physics.
He do admit that there is currently no satisfactory solution to the Born Rule issue, yet he has written several posts talking about MWI as it is "obviously true". That is quite irrational. Quantum mechanics is, after all, ALL about the probabilities predicted by Born Rule, that is the essence of QM, if a model gets these probabilities wrong, it is obviously in deep trouble.
I am quite dissapointed in Yudowsky for not admitting that he may have overstepped his area of expertise and mislead people to think that the case for MWI was stronger than it ACTUALLY is.
I think it might be that he thinks the only other alternative is anti-realism or indeterminism, which is wrong, I dispise and absolutely object to both antirealism and indeterminism, but thee are other realist interpretations out there and the fact that we got no quantum gravity solution nor any ToE should force even the most stubborn MWI'ers to keep their minds open and refrain from claiming that it is true.
That doesn't remotely follow - at least not without a rather antagonistic interpretation of Eliezer's position. Eliezer is clearly not claiming that there is a theory that gives a good explanation for what causes the Born Rule to behave as it does. He is just claiming that supporting a theory that tries to pretend there is just one world given what we do know about physics would be batshit crazy.
To precisely the same extent that the a lack of a quantum gravity should oblige people not to affiliate with general relativity.
Uh, this language does not help rational discourse.
How is this relevant? Because you think talking about Eliezer and someone else who is wrong in the same comment will make Eliezer look worse?
I assume the comment intended to provide an illustrative example of group thinking based on a contentious physical hypothesis at which the LWers can look from the outside.
woosh :(
Because the reason the MWI is discussed here has nothing to do with rationality.