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.
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.