I have based this assumption on my perhaps mistaken impression that many LW users appear to have a bias toward Hugh Everett’s many worlds interpretation of QM. If you have rational arguments to defend this position, please feel free to defend your position below.
I doubt the QM reference has anything to do with the reaction to your comment. It was downvoted for persistent confusion in the thread and smug irrelevance.
As for QM interpretations, that is boring and has been argued to death and is completely of-topic here. Look here for a list of subjects that have been thoroughly covered (the QM sequence) and if you must argue argue in the “the winner is many worlds” post that you’ll see there. A few people will agree with you. Some may argue. Most will ignore you because it is not their responsibility.
In the case that the second proposition (with respect QM) is irrelevant to the thread, any apparent dislike of the comment must associate to the first proposition.
… symbols (or strings of symbols) have different sense in different contexts …
This in response to your comment:
This is an excellent quote … I downvoted it here …
I think matabele is asking for elaborations of why his post starting “And there you have it...” was downvoted, given that if people aren’t complaining about the QM part, they are complaining about the “have different sense in different contexts” which was a reply to your “This is an excellent quote … I downvoted it here...”.
I am new to this forum; as far as I remember I came here via the QM sequence. I was immediately impressed by the material, and became interested in other sequences (I have a long term interest in rationality, and especially general semantics.)
In order to acquaint myself with the general gist of the forums, I made a couple of innocuous posts on this thread; to which I received this response:
… I mean it is bullshit.
I have a natural aversion to narcissistic types, and my hackles were immediately alerted. After one or two more pokes, I was on full alert.
Do you consider yourself to be a moderator of this forum? If so, why are you both moderating and rating comments? If not, why do you think your opinions are privileged?
I am new to this forum; as far as I remember I came here via the QM sequence. I was immediately impressed by the material, and became interested in other sequences (I have a long term interest in rationality, and especially general semantics.)
The QM sequence is most definitely not representative of either the sequences or the other material here.
Do you consider yourself to be a moderator of this forum? If so, why are you both moderating and rating comments? If not, why do you think your opinions are privileged?
I don’t know what kind of forums you’re used to, but on LW non-moderators are allowed to criticize other comments and everyone is allowed to vote on them.
Also one piece of advise, you may want to avoid comments like this one that are so full of jargon that nobody can tell what you’re saying, but seem vaguely insulting.
I doubt the QM reference has anything to do with the reaction to your comment. It was downvoted for persistent confusion in the thread and smug irrelevance.
As for QM interpretations, that is boring and has been argued to death and is completely of-topic here. Look here for a list of subjects that have been thoroughly covered (the QM sequence) and if you must argue argue in the “the winner is many worlds” post that you’ll see there. A few people will agree with you. Some may argue. Most will ignore you because it is not their responsibility.
In the case that the second proposition (with respect QM) is irrelevant to the thread, any apparent dislike of the comment must associate to the first proposition.
This in response to your comment:
Please elaborate.
See the second set of ellipsis? Find the part that went there. That is all.
I think matabele is asking for elaborations of why his post starting “And there you have it...” was downvoted, given that if people aren’t complaining about the QM part, they are complaining about the “have different sense in different contexts” which was a reply to your “This is an excellent quote … I downvoted it here...”.
What part of that in unclear?
I am finding it difficult to communicate with matabele. Expected payoff is low in this tangent. I will stop attempting.
Expected payoff for whom?
I am new to this forum; as far as I remember I came here via the QM sequence. I was immediately impressed by the material, and became interested in other sequences (I have a long term interest in rationality, and especially general semantics.)
In order to acquaint myself with the general gist of the forums, I made a couple of innocuous posts on this thread; to which I received this response:
I have a natural aversion to narcissistic types, and my hackles were immediately alerted. After one or two more pokes, I was on full alert.
Do you consider yourself to be a moderator of this forum? If so, why are you both moderating and rating comments? If not, why do you think your opinions are privileged?
In terms of expected utility.
The QM sequence is most definitely not representative of either the sequences or the other material here.
I don’t know what kind of forums you’re used to, but on LW non-moderators are allowed to criticize other comments and everyone is allowed to vote on them.
Also one piece of advise, you may want to avoid comments like this one that are so full of jargon that nobody can tell what you’re saying, but seem vaguely insulting.