I didn’t like it because some of the questions offered too narrow a range of answers for my taste. Example: I consider the “many worlds” hypothesis to be objectively meaningless (because there’s no possible experiment that can test it). The same goes for “this universe is a simulation.”
As for the “singularity”, I see it as nearly meaningless too. Every definition of it I’ve seen amounts to a horizon, beyond which the future (or some aspects of it) will be unimaginable—but from how far past? Like a physical horizon, if such a “limit of vision” exists it must recede as you approach it. Even a cliff can be looked over.
because there’s no possible experiment that can test it
Is this an explicit premise of MWI, or is it a logical consequence of the premises, or is it based on current technology and understanding?
Even if it is one of the first two, suppose all other interpretations made testable predictions. Would the question asking one to estimate the chances MWI is correct be useful?
It’s a logical consequence of the premises. The instant there’s a split, all branches except the one you’re in become totally and permanently unreachable by any means whatever. If they did not, the conservation laws would be violated.
If all other interpretations made testable predictions, it wouldn’t be enough unless you could somehow eliminate any possibility that didn’t make the list because nobody’s thought of it yet. It’s like the fallacy in Pascal’s Wager: all possible religions belong in the hat.
So if for thousands of years science can’t think of anything better than hidden variables of the gaps, collapse at a level we can’t detect because of its scale, and MWI, MWI is “objectively meaningless”? If somehow the room for hidden variables is eliminated, and the collapse is falsified, it’s still “objectively meaningless”?
I can’t make sense of your reply. The first “sentence” isn’t a sentence or even coherent.
But perhaps I myself could have been clearer by saying: The instant there’s a split, all branches except the one you’re in effectively cease to exist, forever. Does that help?
The first “sentence” isn’t a sentence or even coherent.
Yes it is. Maybe this rephrasing would help:
So let me state my understanding with the inflection of a question so you know it requests a response… If (for thousands of years, science can’t think of anything better than [hidden variables of the gaps && collapse at a level we can’t detect because of its scale && MWI]) then (MWI is “objectively meaningless”).
I don’t know what you mean by “science can’t think of anything better”.
I’m simply using the standard that a statement is objectively meaningful if it states some alleged objective fact.
I reject the notion of hidden variables (except possibly the core of oneself, the existence of the ego) as un-Bayesian. With that one potential exception, all objective facts are testable, at least in principle (though some may be impractical to test).
I fail to see how one can be rational and not believe that. I’m not saying this to insult, but to get an explanation of what you think I’ve overlooked.
I took the survey.
I didn’t like it because some of the questions offered too narrow a range of answers for my taste. Example: I consider the “many worlds” hypothesis to be objectively meaningless (because there’s no possible experiment that can test it). The same goes for “this universe is a simulation.”
As for the “singularity”, I see it as nearly meaningless too. Every definition of it I’ve seen amounts to a horizon, beyond which the future (or some aspects of it) will be unimaginable—but from how far past? Like a physical horizon, if such a “limit of vision” exists it must recede as you approach it. Even a cliff can be looked over.
Is this an explicit premise of MWI, or is it a logical consequence of the premises, or is it based on current technology and understanding?
Even if it is one of the first two, suppose all other interpretations made testable predictions. Would the question asking one to estimate the chances MWI is correct be useful?
It’s a logical consequence of the premises. The instant there’s a split, all branches except the one you’re in become totally and permanently unreachable by any means whatever. If they did not, the conservation laws would be violated.
If all other interpretations made testable predictions, it wouldn’t be enough unless you could somehow eliminate any possibility that didn’t make the list because nobody’s thought of it yet. It’s like the fallacy in Pascal’s Wager: all possible religions belong in the hat.
So if for thousands of years science can’t think of anything better than hidden variables of the gaps, collapse at a level we can’t detect because of its scale, and MWI, MWI is “objectively meaningless”? If somehow the room for hidden variables is eliminated, and the collapse is falsified, it’s still “objectively meaningless”?
It’s scientifically meaningless, maybe, but that’s like saying evidence is inadmissible in court because it results from a search conducted without a warrant. It doesn’t imply the crime wasn’t committed by the culprit. http://lesswrong.com/lw/in/scientific_evidence_legal_evidence_rational/
I can’t make sense of your reply. The first “sentence” isn’t a sentence or even coherent.
But perhaps I myself could have been clearer by saying: The instant there’s a split, all branches except the one you’re in effectively cease to exist, forever. Does that help?
Yes it is. Maybe this rephrasing would help:
I don’t know what you mean by “science can’t think of anything better”.
I’m simply using the standard that a statement is objectively meaningful if it states some alleged objective fact.
I reject the notion of hidden variables (except possibly the core of oneself, the existence of the ego) as un-Bayesian. With that one potential exception, all objective facts are testable, at least in principle (though some may be impractical to test).
I fail to see how one can be rational and not believe that. I’m not saying this to insult, but to get an explanation of what you think I’ve overlooked.
You should re-write this as a reply to the person who made those claims.