= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alexei comments on Quantum Decisions - 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 (20)
May be. That's the point of this question.
I don't think it is the point at all, since the difference between quantum random and pseudorandom has nothing to do with making decisions. I think you are simply using a cool-sounding word "quantum" where "probabilistic" is what you really mean.
Sigh. No, I mean precisely quantum and not probabilistic. I'm wondering how it affects the "reality fluid", for example. I'll go and edit the question to make it more clear.
Ah, so you are taking the MWI ontology as if it were something testable. Gotcha. Let me just note that if your logic relies on untestables, it's not a good one. If the visible outcome changes when you replace "Everett branches" with "possible worlds", you are doing something wrong.
"Reality fluid" is EYspeak for "I have no clue", and he stated as much, though not in quite that way. It's not a good term, as it gives a false impression of explaining/modeling something. Don't use it.
The idea of the term is exactly to draw attention to the fact that it doesn't explain or model anything (by analogy with Phlogiston).
I don't think we disagree.