Mitchell and Eliezer are both smart people, yet their intuitions and reasoning have led them to very different conclusions about quantum reality. While both interpretations are, I think, testable in principle, with Mitchell’s much closer to being practically realizable, neither can be fully tested at this time. The scientific conclusion is probably to say that it doesn’t really matter, come back when you have a prediction. Yet I think both Eliezer and Mitchell are unsatisfied with this agnosticism and both want to see tighter bounds on our beliefs about what may be true. Science gives us a way forward on scientific disputes; yet the disagreement between Eliezer and Mitchell seems to be much harder to resolve.
Philosophers have argued for centuries on similar issues and made virtually no progress. Does this suggest that there is no effective means to settle disputes that go beyond science? Maybe in the end, science is the best we can do.
Mitchell and Eliezer are both smart people, yet their intuitions and reasoning have led them to very different conclusions about quantum reality. While both interpretations are, I think, testable in principle, with Mitchell’s much closer to being practically realizable, neither can be fully tested at this time. The scientific conclusion is probably to say that it doesn’t really matter, come back when you have a prediction. Yet I think both Eliezer and Mitchell are unsatisfied with this agnosticism and both want to see tighter bounds on our beliefs about what may be true. Science gives us a way forward on scientific disputes; yet the disagreement between Eliezer and Mitchell seems to be much harder to resolve.
Philosophers have argued for centuries on similar issues and made virtually no progress. Does this suggest that there is no effective means to settle disputes that go beyond science? Maybe in the end, science is the best we can do.