Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

paper-machine comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

42 Post author: Costanza 29 December 2011 11:23PM

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

Comments (265)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2011 06:18:44AM 4 points [-]

I think 1) should probably be split into two arguments, then.

Ah, okay, that makes more sense. 1a) (that MWI is simpler than competing theories) would be vastly more convincing than 1b) (that collapse is bad, mkay). I'm going to have to reread the relevant subsequence with 1a) in mind.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 30 December 2011 09:38:59PM *  4 points [-]

I really don't think 1a) is addressed by Eliezer; no offense meant to him, but I don't think he knows very much about interpretations besides MWI (maybe I'm wrong and he just doesn't discuss them for some reason?). E.g. AFAICT the transactional interpretation has what people 'round these parts might call an Occamian benefit in that it doesn't require an additional rule that says "ignore advanced wave solutions to Maxwell's equations". In general these Occamian arguments aren't as strong as they're made out to be.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 December 2011 09:57:38PM *  1 point [-]

If you read Decoherence is Simple while keeping in mind that EY treats decoherence and MWI as synonymous, and ignore the superfluous references to MML, Kolmogorov and Solomonoff, then 1a) is addressed there.