if you decline to condemn them to death, how are they different from other “residents” in the distant future?
Probably because some are more real and others are less so.
Can you explain in more detail what you mean by this?
Jakeness
Karma: 103
Has it been demonstrated to be safe over a long period of time?
How can somebody (without access to a lab) practically implement that technique?
I suppose I would not be failing an empirical test, but I would be going against the well established law of conservation of mass and energy, and we can conclude I am wrong with >99% certainty.
To prevent us from getting too hooked on the analogy and back to my original question, if there is a theory (Bohm) that cannot pass or fail an experimental test but does go against a well established principle (locality), why should we give it a second glance? (Again, not a rhetorical question.)
The analogy is hand-waving. If the spacecraft has gone over the cosmological horizon, how did you ever conclude that it exists in the first place? Such a conclusion would only be possible if you observed the spacecraft before it crossed over. In other words, it passed an experimental test.
That didn’t really answer the question. Can you give a context-specific answer?
If interpretations cannot pass or fail an experimental test, what purpose do they serve?
(Not a rhetorical question; genuinely curious.)
And yes, Bohm is non-local, which you could say is a problem… or you could say it explains why quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics.
I’m not saying the Bohm interpretation is wrong (because I’m too inexperienced in the field to say), butI do not see how the above statement can be used to privilege Bohm over any other theory. If anything, shouldn’t its non-locality lower our priors on its correctness?
Those two concepts have some overlap. Why should we use our energy trying to accomplish something that many have failed? Do we have good reason to discard the validity of their efforts? Are there good reasons to think our particular abilities are better suited to the task? Are we going to make some incremental progress that others can build on?
I would somewhat agree with this if the phrase “making mistakes” was removed. People generally have poor reasoning skills and make non-optimal choices >99% of the time. (Yes, I am including myself and you, the reader, in this generalization.)
I don’t see how what you have said necessitates the “downfall” of science. It seems to me that it only suggests scientists should look at their theories as “the best possible explanation at the current time, which will likely be altered or proven incorrect in the future,” rather than the usual “this is right, everything else is wrong.” But we already know that this is an improvement everyone should be making to their thought-processes; here scientists are being singled out.
It would be appreciated if someone pointed out flaws in what I have said.
I can’t speak for him, but I developed below-average social curiosity after I realized that people usually talk about things that aren’t really interesting.
Under normal social circumstances, I no longer attempt to correct another person’s belief by telling them how it is wrong and stating mine. If somebody makes a statement of questionable accuracy, I ask questions to determine how they came to the conclusion. This not only forces the person to consciously justify themselves and perhaps change their mind on their own, but allows for me to collect potential good arguments against my contrary belief. Conversations in general become more interesting and less hostile while following this protocol.
Interesting. I’m going to try to look out for that from here on.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you can avoid most (all minus epsilon) of the exhaust fumes be keeping your windows closed and recirculating air from the vents. Commuters should be more concerned with having a car accident. AFAIK, people discount the relatively high risk of death and serious injury resulting from traffic accidents.
Why not purchase an air mattress or a pull-out couch?
Now that the blog has been made private, could you provide a summary of her claims?
What time does the Sunday meet up start/finish?
What exactly is meant by the phrase “LW-style rationality?”
Thanks for posting this. I always enjoy these “in-practice” oriented posts, as I feel they help me check if I truly understand the concepts I learn here, in a similar way that example problems in textbooks check if I know how to correctly apply the material I just read.
I think this post can be modified, without much effort, to defend any pseudo-cult, or even a cheesy movie.