= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pragmatist 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)
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.