One (hopefully) final note: With respect to quantum mechanics, I believe a sort of bare-bones* “nested world interpretation” could explain wave function collapse just as well as the “many worlds interpretation” explains it. (A nested world interpretation would involve quantum behavior coming from the outer world, w/ classical physics behavior originating in, or innate to, this world.)
This belief probably does indeed make me a “crank.” The word “crank” was used by another LW user in a reply to my linked post. Based on the context, I think it was supposed to be a mildly pejorative way of referring to someone with unconventional & unprovable ideas.
I think that the “crank allegation” might have actually been correct, at least with respect to my thoughts on interpreting wave function collapse. Sorry for not recognizing that point earlier, and thanks for the discussion. It helped me to think about how my views fit in a larger social context.
As mentioned before, I’ve turned off notifications on this thread, so I might not respond to follow-ups. My silence doesn’t imply an endorsement or rebuttal of anything. It just means I have some time constraints.
--
*By “bare-bones,” I mean nothing that would arise to a simulation theory or any other embellished subset of nested world theories. It’s true that I love discussing the idea of “programmed worlds,” because such discussions engender an almost playful type of supra-universal thinking. However, while I wouldn’t bet money on a programmed world interpretation, I would go so far as to bet on a “no-strings-attached” nested world interpretation.
One (hopefully) final note: With respect to quantum mechanics, I believe a sort of bare-bones* “nested world interpretation” could explain wave function collapse just as well as the “many worlds interpretation” explains it. (A nested world interpretation would involve quantum behavior coming from the outer world, w/ classical physics behavior originating in, or innate to, this world.)
This belief probably does indeed make me a “crank.” The word “crank” was used by another LW user in a reply to my linked post. Based on the context, I think it was supposed to be a mildly pejorative way of referring to someone with unconventional & unprovable ideas.
I think that the “crank allegation” might have actually been correct, at least with respect to my thoughts on interpreting wave function collapse. Sorry for not recognizing that point earlier, and thanks for the discussion. It helped me to think about how my views fit in a larger social context.
As mentioned before, I’ve turned off notifications on this thread, so I might not respond to follow-ups. My silence doesn’t imply an endorsement or rebuttal of anything. It just means I have some time constraints.
--
*By “bare-bones,” I mean nothing that would arise to a simulation theory or any other embellished subset of nested world theories. It’s true that I love discussing the idea of “programmed worlds,” because such discussions engender an almost playful type of supra-universal thinking. However, while I wouldn’t bet money on a programmed world interpretation, I would go so far as to bet on a “no-strings-attached” nested world interpretation.