I think that the locally respectable position is that EY’s mistakes describing QM don’t matter. I think the purpose of describing QM was to articulate a position in philosophy-of-science.
Whether EY made particular errors is irrelevant to the philosophy-of-science point. And any errors in the philosophy-of-science point are probably irrelevant to raising the sanity line.
I personally find EY’s arrogance regarding MWI off-putting, but I suppose I stuck around the site anyway, so I don’t know whether it’s driving away others.
I think that the locally respectable position is that EY’s mistakes describing QM don’t matter. I think the purpose of describing QM was to articulate a position in philosophy-of-science.
Whether EY made particular errors is irrelevant to the philosophy-of-science point. And any errors in the philosophy-of-science point are probably irrelevant to raising the sanity line.
Oh, well-clarified. Thank you.
I personally find EY’s arrogance regarding MWI off-putting, but I suppose I stuck around the site anyway, so I don’t know whether it’s driving away others.