That all sounds very reasonable—though I’m not as big a fan of William of Ockham as many people here—but I still don’t understand what did Eliezer mean by “knowable”.
In the absence of a straightforward empirical interpretation (“knowable” = pokable, measurable, analysable...), I associate this word with mushy theology (along the “Christ is knowable through your heart” lines).
I still don’t understand what did Eliezer mean by “knowable”.
It’s one thing to say “there are multiple competing interpretations,” another to say “there is a simplest interpretation, and other, more burdensome variants,” and still another to be able to point to the calculations that determine which explanation is simplest. I don’t poll people on their interpretations of QM, but I am of the impression that many people who have opinions on QM interpretations aren’t even aware that there’s math that is useful for comparing interpretations. (Hence them not realizing that it’s “knowable.”)
There’s also the point about lightness, and using the most likely explanation as the default explanation, instead of saying “sure, it’s more likely, but not so much more likely enough that my pet theory is totally unacceptable in comparison, so I’m sticking with my pet theory.”
aren’t even aware that there’s math that is useful for comparing interpretations
Notably, that “math” (and it’s not just math) did not convince large chunks of the physics community—people who are quite comfortable with numbers and who certainly know the “knowable” issue.
But this is an endless debate and it probably would be best not to step into the morass :-)
That all sounds very reasonable—though I’m not as big a fan of William of Ockham as many people here—but I still don’t understand what did Eliezer mean by “knowable”.
In the absence of a straightforward empirical interpretation (“knowable” = pokable, measurable, analysable...), I associate this word with mushy theology (along the “Christ is knowable through your heart” lines).
It’s one thing to say “there are multiple competing interpretations,” another to say “there is a simplest interpretation, and other, more burdensome variants,” and still another to be able to point to the calculations that determine which explanation is simplest. I don’t poll people on their interpretations of QM, but I am of the impression that many people who have opinions on QM interpretations aren’t even aware that there’s math that is useful for comparing interpretations. (Hence them not realizing that it’s “knowable.”)
There’s also the point about lightness, and using the most likely explanation as the default explanation, instead of saying “sure, it’s more likely, but not so much more likely enough that my pet theory is totally unacceptable in comparison, so I’m sticking with my pet theory.”
Notably, that “math” (and it’s not just math) did not convince large chunks of the physics community—people who are quite comfortable with numbers and who certainly know the “knowable” issue.
But this is an endless debate and it probably would be best not to step into the morass :-)