I see three problems with this comment (even though on some level I seem to agree with its intended message):
Appeal to dictionary definition (essentially), paying close attention to details in authoritative wording. In this case, the wording misses the point, because the relevant features of the problem are not yet visible at this level of detail.
Dismissing subjective experience as domain of proper hypotheses. Even congitive scientists have tools now to perform scientific investigation of subjective experience, and rational hypotheses about subjective experience that are not scientific abound.
It seems pretty clear to me that “evidence against quantum immortality” refers to evidence against the theory that predicts the subjective experience referred to by “quantum immortality”.
It would be good to consider the possibility that someone may use a word somewhat differently than how it is defined on Wikipedia, before telling them that their argument is just incoherent.
It seems pretty clear to me that “evidence against quantum immortality” refers to evidence against the theory that predicts the subjective experience referred to by “quantum immortality”.
That would mean “evidence against quantum physics”. (And I’m actually not even sure it would count as evidence against quantum mechanics.)
It would be good to consider the possibility that someone may use a word somewhat differently than how it is defined on Wikipedia, before telling them that their argument is just incoherent.
You can have evidence against scientific hypotheses—but not against subjective experiences.
So: the notion of “evidence against quantum immortality” does not seem to make very much sense.
In that case, by conservation of expected evidence the idea of “evidence for quantum immortality” makes about as much sense. In context then, this is just as much of a problem with Pavitra’s objection to people interpreting the current state as evidence for.
Wikipedia says:
You can have evidence against scientific hypotheses—but not against subjective experiences.
So: the notion of “evidence against quantum immortality” does not seem to make very much sense.
If you are trying to say that “quantum immortality” refers to a scientific hypothesis, perhaps you should say which hypothesis you mean.
I see three problems with this comment (even though on some level I seem to agree with its intended message):
Appeal to dictionary definition (essentially), paying close attention to details in authoritative wording. In this case, the wording misses the point, because the relevant features of the problem are not yet visible at this level of detail.
Stress on the word “scientific” instead of more relevant features of proper/improper hypotheses. See Scientific Evidence, Legal Evidence, Rational Evidence.
Dismissing subjective experience as domain of proper hypotheses. Even congitive scientists have tools now to perform scientific investigation of subjective experience, and rational hypotheses about subjective experience that are not scientific abound.
It seems pretty clear to me that “evidence against quantum immortality” refers to evidence against the theory that predicts the subjective experience referred to by “quantum immortality”.
It would be good to consider the possibility that someone may use a word somewhat differently than how it is defined on Wikipedia, before telling them that their argument is just incoherent.
That would mean “evidence against quantum physics”. (And I’m actually not even sure it would count as evidence against quantum mechanics.)
Tim’s reply is not based on semantics.
In that case, by conservation of expected evidence the idea of “evidence for quantum immortality” makes about as much sense. In context then, this is just as much of a problem with Pavitra’s objection to people interpreting the current state as evidence for.