wedrifid comments on Common sense as a prior - LessWrong

33 Post author: Nick_Beckstead 11 August 2013 06:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (212)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 11 August 2013 05:39:13AM *  2 points [-]

Not under these circumstances, no. Part of understanding that the world is not sane, is understanding that some people in any given reference class will refuse to be persuaded by any given bit of sanity. It might be worrying if the object-level case against single-world QM were not absolutely clear-cut.

It may be worth also observing that at least two of those users have disagreements with you about epistemology and reductionism far more fundamental than QM interpretations. When someone's epistemic philosophy leads them to disagree about existence implications of general relativity then their epistemic disagreement about the implications of QM provides very little additional information.

When you bite the bullet and accept someone else's beliefs based on their authority then consistency suggests you do it at the core point of disagreement, not merely one of the implications thereof. In this case that would require rather sweeping changes.

Comment author: Document 11 August 2013 05:57:43PM *  5 points [-]

When someone's epistemic philosophy leads them to disagree about existence implications of general relativity

I'm slightly annoyed that I just reread most of that thread in the understanding that you were linking to the disagreements in question, only to find no comments by either shminux, Mitchell Porter or EHeller and therefore feel no closer to understanding this particular subthread's context.

Comment author: CarlShulman 11 August 2013 09:09:08PM *  5 points [-]

I think he was referring to shminux's non scientific-realist views, suggesting they are in conflict with such statements as "there are galaxies distant enough that we cannot see them due to lightspeed limitations."

Comment author: Document 11 August 2013 09:27:47PM 2 points [-]

Thanks.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 August 2013 04:32:18AM *  0 points [-]

I'm slightly annoyed that I just reread most of that thread in the understanding that you were linking to

Never mind, that post and thread are far more interesting than the assorted related comments spread over years. Carl's comment is correct and if you want more details about those you may have luck using Wei Dai's script. You'd have to experiment with keywords.