Perhaps you could first unpack your implicit unstated argument from random poll number to sarcastic remarks about not being physicists, so no one winds up criticizing something you then say you didn’t mean.
So ask the question next survey. I do, however, strongly suspect they’re expressing an opinion on something they don’t actually understand—and I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption, given most people don’t—which would imply they were only doing so because “believe in MWI” is a local trope.
I certainly hope the next survey will ask how many of those saying they agree or disagree with it
Since our certainty was given as a percentage, none of us said we agreed or disagreed with it in the survey, unless you define “agree” as certainty > 50% and “disagree” as certainty below 50%
Or are you saying that we should default to 50%, in all cases we aren’t scientifically qualified to answer of our own strength? That has obvious problems.
“So ask the question next survey. I do, however, strongly suspect they’re expressing an opinion on something they don’t actually understand”
That’s like asking people to explain how consciousness works before they express their belief in the existence of brains, or their disbelief in the existence of ghosts.
I do, however, strongly suspect they’re expressing an opinion on something they don’t actually understand—and I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption, given most people don’t—which would imply they were only doing so because “believe in MWI” is a local trope.
What is “actually understand” here and why does it sound like a dichotomy? Are you arguing that one cannot have any opinion about MWI based on any amount of understanding derived from popularizations (Eliezer-written or otherwise) which falls short of one being able to solve technical problems you list?
Surely you don’t believe that one is not allowed to hold any opinion or confidence levels without becoming a full-fledged domain expert, but that does sound like what your argument is.
Given that the MWI is claimed to follow by just taking the equations seriously, then I think understanding the equations in question is not an unreasonable prerequisite to having a meaningful opinion on that.
Perhaps you could first unpack your implicit unstated argument from random poll number to sarcastic remarks about not being physicists, so no one winds up criticizing something you then say you didn’t mean.
So ask the question next survey. I do, however, strongly suspect they’re expressing an opinion on something they don’t actually understand—and I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption, given most people don’t—which would imply they were only doing so because “believe in MWI” is a local trope.
So which bit was unfair?
Since our certainty was given as a percentage, none of us said we agreed or disagreed with it in the survey, unless you define “agree” as certainty > 50% and “disagree” as certainty below 50%
Or are you saying that we should default to 50%, in all cases we aren’t scientifically qualified to answer of our own strength? That has obvious problems.
That’s like asking people to explain how consciousness works before they express their belief in the existence of brains, or their disbelief in the existence of ghosts.
What is “actually understand” here and why does it sound like a dichotomy? Are you arguing that one cannot have any opinion about MWI based on any amount of understanding derived from popularizations (Eliezer-written or otherwise) which falls short of one being able to solve technical problems you list?
Surely you don’t believe that one is not allowed to hold any opinion or confidence levels without becoming a full-fledged domain expert, but that does sound like what your argument is.
Given that the MWI is claimed to follow by just taking the equations seriously, then I think understanding the equations in question is not an unreasonable prerequisite to having a meaningful opinion on that.
Your line of argument could equally apply to quantum physicists.