4 ms·

Yes, they shouldn't get their hopes up too much. Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one. With MWI there is no

Yes, they shouldn't get their hopes up too much. Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one. With MWI there is no spooky action at a distance, and nothing is actually transmitted faster than the speed of light.

wamatt 14y ago
> Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know". Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?' Answer A: God makes it happen. Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun or earth, with respect to each other. The sun "rises" is more an observational effect of a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, having their field of view rotated. (For the record, answer B can be improved of course, though that's not the point here) "Simplicity" does not mean a catchall (Answer A). It also does not necessarily mean linguistic brevity either. There is debate around what it means and it's beyond the scope of my comment[1]. This is the problem with string theory, that also tends to be popular among the MWI crowd too. It's overly broad and the math looks pretty, but those are not sufficient conditions for a good scientific theory. (Oblig xkcd [1]) MWI, like string theory, makes little if any falsifiable and testable claims. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ [2]http://xkcd.com/171/ http://xkcd.com/171/
- eridius 14y ago
  A fair definition of "simplicity" is relying on the fewest (or simplest) assumptions. "God made it happen" relies on the most complicated assumption possible, that of an omnipotent god. It is never the simplest answer, except linguistically.
- Eliezer 14y ago
  Um, no. MWI is simplest in the strict, formal, information-theoretic, Kolmogorov-complexity sense, while fitting the data to equal precision with any competitor. That's kinda the whole point of MWI. http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
  - wamatt 14y ago
    From your link: "This is Bayes's Theorem. I own at least two distinct items of clothing printed with this theorem, so it must be important." - Eliezer cringe. "Here's a bunch of math so I must be really smart. Trust me guys." Math is awesome, but waving it around as if to automatically lends credibility to your argument is a poor showing IMHO. Specifically, quantum decoherence is simply not accepted as a thing that exists on a macro scale. You're post presents no claim that is testable, despite the bold headline to the contrary. Lets look at an example of a what physicists consider to be a falsifiable claim: The Standard Model predicts the existence of a new elementary particle, the Higgs Boson. This could be tested experimentally in theory, and later it was tested in practice, once the capability existed (LHC). Or another example: orbital mechanics predicts the location of the asteroid Apophis will pass unusually close (<100 000KM) to earth in 2029.[1] Now of course if Apophis fails to show up, or shows up overly late or in the wrong place etc, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theory, but there does eventually need to be a credible explanation. The simplest is usually measurement error, or silly human error etc. But every now and then, there are discrepancies that just don't go away, and those are often the ones that lead interesting new theories pushing science forward. TBH I don't think your post does that. The failing of physicists to take your above link seriously, does not epistemically speaking invalidate the claim of course, but it should be pause for concern. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
    - loup-vaillant 14y ago
      Eliezer probably didn't want to bother you with the whole sequence, but I will: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/ This is a very interesting read overall, highly recommended. Also, while Eliezer does sometimes plays with the argument from authority (like in the piece of humour you cited), I have never caught him actually using it to win an argument. Oh, and one of the points (not the main one!) is to tell that those physicists, with all their authority, are wrong. (Well, at least those in favour of the Copenhagen Interpretation.)
    - nessus42 14y ago
      MWI certainly does make falsifiable claims. It's just that different interpretations of QM are extremely difficult to experimentally distinguish with any technology we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. The only well-known interpretation of QM that is experimentally indistinguishable--in theory--from MWI is Bohm's Interpretation. And I think it would be a difficult row to hoe that Bohm's Interpretation is simpler than MWI, as Bohm's universe contains the MWI universe as a subset in the form of pilot waves that never collapse. I.e., the only difference between MWI and Bohm is that in Bohm, one of the "worlds" is granted reality, while the others are not. Of course, there's nothing in MWI that grants all the worlds reality either. Someone can certainly remain agnostic about that. E.g., Stehphen Hawking has said that MWI is obviously true, though he is agnostic on the reality of the other worlds. For more information on this, including a tutorial on all the linear algebra that you need to understand, see the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Albert.

wamatt 14y ago

> Since the Many Worlds Interpretation is the simplest one, it is also the most likely one The simplest defeasible claim in 2013, is still: "we don't know". Consider, 'How does the sun come up every day?' Answer A: God makes it happen. Answer B: The earth is a spinning geoid that rotates eastwards, once about it's axis, roughly every 24 hours. However most of the effect is not related to the orbits of either the sun or earth, with respect to each other. The sun "rises" is more an observational effect of a stationary observer on the surface of the earth, having their field of view rotated. (For the record, answer B can be improved of course, though that's not the point here) "Simplicity" does not mean a catchall (Answer A). It also does not necessarily mean linguistic brevity either. There is debate around what it means and it's beyond the scope of my comment[1]. This is the problem with string theory, that also tends to be popular among the MWI crowd too. It's overly broad and the math looks pretty, but those are not sufficient conditions for a good scientific theory. (Oblig xkcd [1]) MWI, like string theory, makes little if any falsifiable and testable claims. [1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ [2]http://xkcd.com/171/ http://xkcd.com/171/

eridius 14y ago
A fair definition of "simplicity" is relying on the fewest (or simplest) assumptions. "God made it happen" relies on the most complicated assumption possible, that of an omnipotent god. It is never the simplest answer, except linguistically.
Eliezer 14y ago
Um, no. MWI is simplest in the strict, formal, information-theoretic, Kolmogorov-complexity sense, while fitting the data to equal precision with any competitor. That's kinda the whole point of MWI. http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q3/decoherence_is_simple/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_testable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q4/decoherence_is_falsifiable_and_te...
- wamatt 14y ago
  From your link: "This is Bayes's Theorem. I own at least two distinct items of clothing printed with this theorem, so it must be important." - Eliezer cringe. "Here's a bunch of math so I must be really smart. Trust me guys." Math is awesome, but waving it around as if to automatically lends credibility to your argument is a poor showing IMHO. Specifically, quantum decoherence is simply not accepted as a thing that exists on a macro scale. You're post presents no claim that is testable, despite the bold headline to the contrary. Lets look at an example of a what physicists consider to be a falsifiable claim: The Standard Model predicts the existence of a new elementary particle, the Higgs Boson. This could be tested experimentally in theory, and later it was tested in practice, once the capability existed (LHC). Or another example: orbital mechanics predicts the location of the asteroid Apophis will pass unusually close (<100 000KM) to earth in 2029.[1] Now of course if Apophis fails to show up, or shows up overly late or in the wrong place etc, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the theory, but there does eventually need to be a credible explanation. The simplest is usually measurement error, or silly human error etc. But every now and then, there are discrepancies that just don't go away, and those are often the ones that lead interesting new theories pushing science forward. TBH I don't think your post does that. The failing of physicists to take your above link seriously, does not epistemically speaking invalidate the claim of course, but it should be pause for concern. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
  - loup-vaillant 14y ago
    Eliezer probably didn't want to bother you with the whole sequence, but I will: http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/ This is a very interesting read overall, highly recommended. Also, while Eliezer does sometimes plays with the argument from authority (like in the piece of humour you cited), I have never caught him actually using it to win an argument. Oh, and one of the points (not the main one!) is to tell that those physicists, with all their authority, are wrong. (Well, at least those in favour of the Copenhagen Interpretation.)
  - nessus42 14y ago
    MWI certainly does make falsifiable claims. It's just that different interpretations of QM are extremely difficult to experimentally distinguish with any technology we are likely to have in the foreseeable future. The only well-known interpretation of QM that is experimentally indistinguishable--in theory--from MWI is Bohm's Interpretation. And I think it would be a difficult row to hoe that Bohm's Interpretation is simpler than MWI, as Bohm's universe contains the MWI universe as a subset in the form of pilot waves that never collapse. I.e., the only difference between MWI and Bohm is that in Bohm, one of the "worlds" is granted reality, while the others are not. Of course, there's nothing in MWI that grants all the worlds reality either. Someone can certainly remain agnostic about that. E.g., Stehphen Hawking has said that MWI is obviously true, though he is agnostic on the reality of the other worlds. For more information on this, including a tutorial on all the linear algebra that you need to understand, see the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience by David Albert.