3 ms·
> It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. To the contrary, it provides an intuitive model that produces correct predictions. That is inherently
by tbabb 5y ago
> It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
To the contrary, it provides an intuitive model that produces correct predictions. That is inherently valuable and extremely relevant.
> Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed.
Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support.
> You guarantee that everybody is going to stop discussing entanglement+FTL communication and will start arguing about interpretations of quantum mechanics
Not wrong >_>
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900738
- nwallin 5y ago> it provides an intuitive model Uh. No. It definitely -- definitely -- doesn't do that. Many worlds, for all its many virtues, gives us "There's another dimension where you -- you -- are Batman!" Because that's what the phrase "many worlds" means to most people. > > Arguing about Copenhagen vs many worlds is literally no different than arguing about Jesus vs Mohamed. > Strongly disagree— See further discussion[1] under my original post for support. So in that discussion, you made the argument: > Both models agree with observation— any measurement we make will not contradict either "empty garage" or "undetectable dragon". ...which is literally the argument people make when they're arguing Jesus vs Mohamed. It's just that nobody agrees on which holy being is the empty garage and which one is the undetectable dragon. > Not wrong >_> Woooo! I won an argument on the internet!!