= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Debugging the Quantum Physics Sequence - 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 (129)
Too much digital ink has already been spilled over this word "obvious"; I suggest we await the revised sequence and see whether or not EY will stick by "obvious" there before returning to the point at hand.
Probably because there is no precise definition of "obvious"? Does it mean "trivial", as in "its proof requires the skills much lower than those expected from the audience"? Clearly (ehm) not, since no interpretation can be proved or disproved. Does it mean "inevitable", as in "it can be proven from the premises, given some effort"? Nope, not that, either. So, no point arguing over whether MWI is obvious until everyone agrees what "obvious" means and how to check for obviousness.
If not everyone can agree on what "obvious" means then it is wrong to use the word in an argument.
Obviously.
I agree wholeheartedly.
What "revised sequence"?
In the wonderful shiny future when the sequences are finally compiled into something.
Eliezer won't be rewriting anything for the Sequences ebook. It'll just be typo corrections and link fixes and stuff, done by not-Eliezer.
I thought the sequences ebook market was already flooded with fanworks. Or are you not trying to turn a profit on it?