I don’t agree with the interpretation of Scott’s comment.
Scott Aaronson doesn’t object to Many Worlds because he associates it with particular contrarian group characteristics, he objects to it because (1) he disagrees with Many Worlds by his way of thinking and (2) doesn’t like the idea that people who do believe Many Worlds with another way of thinking are projecting superiority.
“What you’ve forced me to realize, Eliezer, and I thank you for this: What I’m uncomfortable with is not the many-worlds interpretation itself, it’s the air of satisfaction that often comes with it.”
So I believe that with this comment, Scott Aaronson was saying that while he can with some effort relate to believing Many Worlds, he is aware that this requires a subtle difference in thinking compared to his usual way of thinking. Perhaps he sees both ways of thinking as viable, but there is an irritation that goes with thinking expansively, especially if the other group is smug about their point of view.
And we do find different ways of thinking threatening, and feel smug about our own way of thinking. It’s really quite general. For example: people who dislike Brittany Spears are often smug about not liking her. This seems strange when you consider that music is just meant to be enjoyed—why should it be a source of pride to enjoy or not enjoy a particular music style?
What we “feel” is logical or natural varies from person to person, and as humans we form general classes of which you and Scott are in separate ones. Libertarian, democratic, republican, physical materialism, theist are some of these groups. Instead of focusing on the science of Many Worlds, I think it would be more interesting to characterize the different aesthetics that are involved in different opinions about Many Worlds, and realize that these are subjective differences.
I don’t agree with the interpretation of Scott’s comment.
Scott Aaronson doesn’t object to Many Worlds because he associates it with particular contrarian group characteristics, he objects to it because (1) he disagrees with Many Worlds by his way of thinking and (2) doesn’t like the idea that people who do believe Many Worlds with another way of thinking are projecting superiority.
So I believe that with this comment, Scott Aaronson was saying that while he can with some effort relate to believing Many Worlds, he is aware that this requires a subtle difference in thinking compared to his usual way of thinking. Perhaps he sees both ways of thinking as viable, but there is an irritation that goes with thinking expansively, especially if the other group is smug about their point of view.
And we do find different ways of thinking threatening, and feel smug about our own way of thinking. It’s really quite general. For example: people who dislike Brittany Spears are often smug about not liking her. This seems strange when you consider that music is just meant to be enjoyed—why should it be a source of pride to enjoy or not enjoy a particular music style?
What we “feel” is logical or natural varies from person to person, and as humans we form general classes of which you and Scott are in separate ones. Libertarian, democratic, republican, physical materialism, theist are some of these groups. Instead of focusing on the science of Many Worlds, I think it would be more interesting to characterize the different aesthetics that are involved in different opinions about Many Worlds, and realize that these are subjective differences.