The one-world interpretation does not fail at this point. It seems to me that many-worlds adepts are so hypnotised by the beauty of mathematics that they forget what reality we have to account for...
Dear Eliezer,
Could you pick a simpler example of a “traditional” style theory that has been replaced by “Bayesian” interpretation which is more efficient while having equal or better fit with reality.
It seems that conjoining two difficult objects in the same example lessens the chance of anyone really getting the point, i..e quantum mechanics and proper epistemology considerations are not simple subjects. I must confess that I get the idea of the post but I cant really get a grip on the reasoning.
Thanks,
Dispose.
″...But when we adopt the “Bayesian Inference” viewpoint of Harold Jeffreys, paradoxes often become simple platitudes and we have a more powerful tool for useful calculations. This is illustrated by three examples from widely different fields: diffusion in kinetic theory, the Einstein—Podolsky—Rosen (EPR) paradox in quantum theory, and the second law of thermodynamics in biology...”
Rather it is consciousness that confuses people.
Precisely, the conscious experience is everything we have to account for at the end.
Dear Eliezer, Could you pick a simpler example of a “traditional” style theory that has been replaced by “Bayesian” interpretation which is more efficient while having equal or better fit with reality. It seems that conjoining two difficult objects in the same example lessens the chance of anyone really getting the point, i..e quantum mechanics and proper epistemology considerations are not simple subjects. I must confess that I get the idea of the post but I cant really get a grip on the reasoning. Thanks, Dispose.
How about E.T. Jaynes’s “Clearing Up Mysteries—The Original Goal”?