= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on 2012 Less Wrong Census Survey: Call For Critiques/Questions - 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 (479)
P(Many Worlds) needs also to ask if the respondent actually knows and understands the equations for practical purposes (well enough to, e.g, solve Schrodinger's equation for a hydrogen atom), since Many Worlds consists of taking the equations seriously. I think it would be of interest to know how well the respondent understands the thing they are opining a probability of.
So should just asking "Have you ever solved Schrödinger's equation?" reliably point out responders who have done any quantum physics involving actual equations? Is this the same sort of basic thing as F = ma equations are in classical mechanics?
Actually, being able to solve the Schrodinger equation (which is perfectly deterministic and usually well-posed) adds very little to one's understanding of the issues leading to Everett-style models. Few QM courses take time to discuss the measurement problem seriously. A Quantum Information course would be more relevant.
That's why I'm asking if you've already done it, not whether you could do it. Only people who have done something at least sightly interesting with actually doing quantum math are likely to have bothered.
If there is a sizable portion of QM math literate people likely to answer no, then it might be a bad question.
Last time about 50% of all respondents said they thought it was correct. I was interested in the degree to which this was an informed answer and not just echoing local opinion.
Talking about the proposed Scrödinger eq question that hasn't been surveyed yet, not the MWI one.
What would be a test of whether a respondent knows enough to be giving an informed opinion?
I think you are asking a wrong question. Your bottom line is prewritten: "Many Worlds consists of taking the equations seriously". This is far from agreed upon by the experts in the field, though many do express this sentiment. My position is that any MW discussion is a distraction and EY's pet peeve, and should be kept out of this forum as much as possible, including any surveys.
It being EY's pet peeve is why it was a survey question last time as well. Assuming you couldn't keep it out, what would you suggest?
Well, I don't think it matters much for the survey purposes, actually, but, as I said, a Quantum Information course like this one would enable one to gain competency in the issues relevant to Many Worlds. A standard undergraduate or even graduate QM course spends hardly any time on the measurement problem.
Does it? For me updating upwards on Many Worlds mainly consisted of getting rid of my preconception that there exist only a single world. It was a process of unlearning a false fundamental assumption, not a process of "taking the equations seriously".
I don't know the equations that would be required to make possible a single world either.
What's the default probability someone must have for a thing they don't understand its equations well enough?