That’s why Russel’s teapot hasn’t been falsified. We’ve barely managed to produce any evidence against it. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it’s perfectly valid to explain it in terms of Russel’s teapot.
That’s why Russel’s teapot hasn’t been falsified. We’ve barely managed to produce any evidence against it. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it’s perfectly valid to explain it in terms of Russel’s teapot.
Though I think you could have picked a better analogy (specifically, one that makes significant predictions about the future), I agree with what you’re saying. Let me say what I should have said:
The thing is, quantum mechanics looks like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are practically identical in the predictions they make. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it’s perfectly valid to explain it in terms of wavefunction collapse.
Um, I did substitute directly into the text of the post I was quoting from.
I shouldn’t need to spell this sort of thing out—but the main problem with both the Copenhagen interpretation and Russel’s teapot is that they violate Occam’s razor—not that there is observational evidence against them.
Um, I did substitute directly into the text of the post I was quoting from.
Your analogy fails to, well, be analogous if you include the first sentence of Warrigal’s full argument. I don’t disagree with you about Occam’s razor; I just think you argued the point poorly.
Using the same logic:
That’s why Russel’s teapot hasn’t been falsified. We’ve barely managed to produce any evidence against it. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it’s perfectly valid to explain it in terms of Russel’s teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot
Though I think you could have picked a better analogy (specifically, one that makes significant predictions about the future), I agree with what you’re saying. Let me say what I should have said:
The thing is, quantum mechanics looks like the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation are practically identical in the predictions they make. Therefore, if you want to explain an observed phenomenon, it’s perfectly valid to explain it in terms of wavefunction collapse.
The same “logic” would actually be:
Analogy fail.
Um, I did substitute directly into the text of the post I was quoting from.
I shouldn’t need to spell this sort of thing out—but the main problem with both the Copenhagen interpretation and Russel’s teapot is that they violate Occam’s razor—not that there is observational evidence against them.
Your analogy fails to, well, be analogous if you include the first sentence of Warrigal’s full argument. I don’t disagree with you about Occam’s razor; I just think you argued the point poorly.