Eliezer’s presentation of QM seems like stealing chaos to me. Articles like this come to mind. At the very least, I suspect he magnifies the amount of chaos in physics- the default position at my school was “shut up and calculate” agnosticism, and quotes from prominent physicists suggest that’s been a significant (if not the dominant) position for a long time.
If you’re postulating new fundamental physics, things that don’t show up microscopically but do show up macroscopically, to explain the Born statistics, there would be a hundred better possibilities that don’t violate Special Relativity.
I’ve never understood why the many-world-ers don’t see that their particular ‘interpretation’ is equally as guilty as CI of violating basic physical laws and creating more problems than it solves in general (note: I’m saying both MWI and CI are equally invalid). Ahh, well.
I’m fairly convinced that MWI is LW dogma because it supports the Bayesian notion that probabilities are mental entitites rather than physical ones, and not on its own merits.
Eliezer’s presentation of QM seems like stealing chaos to me. Articles like this come to mind. At the very least, I suspect he magnifies the amount of chaos in physics- the default position at my school was “shut up and calculate” agnosticism, and quotes from prominent physicists suggest that’s been a significant (if not the dominant) position for a long time.
… from a comment of his on that self-same thread:
I’ve never understood why the many-world-ers don’t see that their particular ‘interpretation’ is equally as guilty as CI of violating basic physical laws and creating more problems than it solves in general (note: I’m saying both MWI and CI are equally invalid). Ahh, well.
I’m fairly convinced that MWI is LW dogma because it supports the Bayesian notion that probabilities are mental entitites rather than physical ones, and not on its own merits.
Certainly Eliezer seems enthralled with the notion. Beyond that I have no opinions on the matter.