3 ms·

I am currently reading, and loving, Yudkowsky's introduction to Quantum Mechanics from the blog: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/ http://lesswro

I am currently reading, and loving, Yudkowsky's introduction to Quantum Mechanics from the blog: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pc/quantum_explanations/ Does anyone know whether that sequence has made it to one of these books?

pyrois 12y ago
I quite liked his introduction! Be aware, however, that he dramatically overstates some things. For example, he claims that the many-worlds interpretation is obviously correct. This is basically wrong: it may be correct, but it certainly isn't obviously correct, and many scientists whose entire research is dedicated to quantum mechanics would disagree that many-worlds is correct at all. There is a long list of alternative explanations[0], with very little evidence to lend support to or contradict any of them (at least, any of the ones that are still around. Some have fallen by the wayside). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...
- hawkice 12y ago
  I think it's fair to say that it's "obvious" when optimizing for the same things Yudkowsky does. For instance, any issue having something to say about the Born rule seems to be his dump stat, if you will. This makes sense, because in the paper where Max Born introduced the rule, he suggests that it indicates only one possible correct interpretation (hint: it was not Many Worlds). That all being said, no one really disagrees about the predictions of the math, and at least many-worlds has less completely ridiculous misinterpretations by lay-people, so both ends of the spectrum are tolerable to me.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  If you read his apologetics, it's literally faith-based science.
adamzerner 12y ago
Yes, it has. Chapter(?) S is titled 'Quantum Physics and Many Worlds'.
maaku 12y ago
There is a much reduced and heavily edited sequence on quantum mechanics in the ebook. I have not yet read the ebook version and can't tell you how they differ, but the editor did state upfront that it was one of the sections which changed the most. Regarding the LessWrong/OvercomingBias version, I must say that you should take the blog posts with a huge, gigantic, over-sized helping of salt. Speaking as someone who majored in physics because I love the field even though I knew it wouldn't help my comp sci career, Yudkowsky does not have the necessary background to speak with authority on this topic and it shows. He makes a few outright mistakes and a lot more overly broad statements, he ignores many validly competing alternative explanations, and as a result the grand philosophical conclusions reached are left unjustified (and as an editorial aside, probably bunk IMHO). The important result of analyzing quantum mechanics as a case study in rationality is the valid point that if like most people (and sadly, most physics professors) you think quantum mechanics is weird, that should be very concerning. Quantum mechanics is real: it very accurately describes reality. If you have a problem with quantum mechanics, you have a problem with reality, and that's about as anti-rationalist as you can get. To improve, find out what part of you rejects the reality of quantum mechanics in spite of experimental evidence, and censor that. Once you've achieved that step, you can skip the rest IMHO.
- ciphergoth 12y ago
  Last time I heard this particular bark, the bite was remarkably weak. [This Physics Overflow question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23785/what-errors-would-one-learn-from-eliezer-yudkowskys-introduction-to-quantum-phy http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23785/what-errors...) didn't turn up any "outright mistakes" unless you count one very trivial sign error that doesn't change the thrust of any of the arguments.

pyrois 12y ago

I quite liked his introduction! Be aware, however, that he dramatically overstates some things. For example, he claims that the many-worlds interpretation is obviously correct. This is basically wrong: it may be correct, but it certainly isn't obviously correct, and many scientists whose entire research is dedicated to quantum mechanics would disagree that many-worlds is correct at all. There is a long list of alternative explanations[0], with very little evidence to lend support to or contradict any of them (at least, any of the ones that are still around. Some have fallen by the wayside). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...

hawkice 12y ago
I think it's fair to say that it's "obvious" when optimizing for the same things Yudkowsky does. For instance, any issue having something to say about the Born rule seems to be his dump stat, if you will. This makes sense, because in the paper where Max Born introduced the rule, he suggests that it indicates only one possible correct interpretation (hint: it was not Many Worlds). That all being said, no one really disagrees about the predictions of the math, and at least many-worlds has less completely ridiculous misinterpretations by lay-people, so both ends of the spectrum are tolerable to me.
GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
If you read his apologetics, it's literally faith-based science.

adamzerner 12y ago

Yes, it has. Chapter(?) S is titled 'Quantum Physics and Many Worlds'.

maaku 12y ago

There is a much reduced and heavily edited sequence on quantum mechanics in the ebook. I have not yet read the ebook version and can't tell you how they differ, but the editor did state upfront that it was one of the sections which changed the most. Regarding the LessWrong/OvercomingBias version, I must say that you should take the blog posts with a huge, gigantic, over-sized helping of salt. Speaking as someone who majored in physics because I love the field even though I knew it wouldn't help my comp sci career, Yudkowsky does not have the necessary background to speak with authority on this topic and it shows. He makes a few outright mistakes and a lot more overly broad statements, he ignores many validly competing alternative explanations, and as a result the grand philosophical conclusions reached are left unjustified (and as an editorial aside, probably bunk IMHO). The important result of analyzing quantum mechanics as a case study in rationality is the valid point that if like most people (and sadly, most physics professors) you think quantum mechanics is weird, that should be very concerning. Quantum mechanics is real: it very accurately describes reality. If you have a problem with quantum mechanics, you have a problem with reality, and that's about as anti-rationalist as you can get. To improve, find out what part of you rejects the reality of quantum mechanics in spite of experimental evidence, and censor that. Once you've achieved that step, you can skip the rest IMHO.

ciphergoth 12y ago
Last time I heard this particular bark, the bite was remarkably weak. [This Physics Overflow question](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23785/what-errors-would-one-learn-from-eliezer-yudkowskys-introduction-to-quantum-phy http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23785/what-errors...) didn't turn up any "outright mistakes" unless you count one very trivial sign error that doesn't change the thrust of any of the arguments.