many-worlds is the simplest explanation that fits the facts,
I find it utterly baffling that anyone could say such a thing. Many worlds, the “simplest” explanation? And what facts does it fit at all, let alone as the best possible fit?
Fine, but the notion that “many worlds” is the “simplest” explanation for anything seems absurd. “Many worlds” is the most extravagant and the least simple explanation that could ever be conceived.
many-worlds is the simplest explanation that fits the facts,
I find it utterly baffling that anyone could say such a thing. Many worlds, the “simplest” explanation? And what facts does it fit at all, let alone as the best possible fit?
Hi, Sheldon. Eliezer has previously defended many worlds at length. Also, Less Wrong uses Markdown syntax: enclose text in *asterisks* to get italics.
Fine, but the notion that “many worlds” is the “simplest” explanation for anything seems absurd. “Many worlds” is the most extravagant and the least simple explanation that could ever be conceived.
Quite the opposite, under the technical definition of simplicity in the context of Occam’s Razor.