You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.
Comment author:MrMind
10 October 2016 07:18:33AM
2 points
[-]
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor.
He then, in another point of the Sequence, tied that problem with interesting questions about anthropic probability (the infamous anthropic trilemma), and that cemented MWI as the preferred way to think about QM here.
On the other hand, I think we are still missing the big picture about quantum mechanics: ER = EPR, categorical quantum mechanics, QBism etc. all points us to interesting unexplored directions.
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor.
It's tendentious to call MWI the only realistic interpretation.
EY makes a case against CI, which in most circumstances would be a case against anti-realism. However his version of CI is actually OR, another realistic theory. So he never makes a case for realism against irrealism.
Comment author:MrMind
14 October 2016 09:11:09AM
*
0 points
[-]
As far as I know, neoEverett is the smallest realist interpretation: Eliezer argued not only against anti-realism, but also in favor of the smallest theory that falls out of the formalism.
Comments (24)
Q: Quantum. Bayesianism isn't the LessWrong official preferred interpretation of QM because....?
In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor. He then, in another point of the Sequence, tied that problem with interesting questions about anthropic probability (the infamous anthropic trilemma), and that cemented MWI as the preferred way to think about QM here.
On the other hand, I think we are still missing the big picture about quantum mechanics: ER = EPR, categorical quantum mechanics, QBism etc. all points us to interesting unexplored directions.
It's tendentious to call MWI the only realistic interpretation.
EY makes a case against CI, which in most circumstances would be a case against anti-realism. However his version of CI is actually OR, another realistic theory. So he never makes a case for realism against irrealism.
As far as I know, neoEverett is the smallest realist interpretation: Eliezer argued not only against anti-realism, but also in favor of the smallest theory that falls out of the formalism.