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
19 October 2016 03:35:09PM
0 points
[-]
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (32)
An incomplete interpretation that is in the right lines may be better than a complete one that is not.
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies