There are interpretatiions simpler than both CI and MWI which EY has not had time to study
Peterdjones
Karma: −1,560
A very quick but sufficient refutation is that the same math taken as a description of an objectively existing causal process gives us MWI, hence there is no reason to complicate our epistemology beyond this
Or MWI could be said to be complicating the ontology unnecessarily. To be sure, rQM answers epistemologically some questions that MWI answers ontologically, but that isn’t obviously a Bad Thing. A realistitc interpretation of the WF is a postive metaphyscial assumption, not some neutral default. A realistic quantum state of the universe is a further assumption that buys problems other interpretations don’t have.
The arguments don’t apply to interpretations that don’t require a real WF or real collapse, and EY has struggled with them,.
The basic wrong assumption being made is that quantum superposition by default equals multiplicity—that because the wavefunction in the double-slit experiment has two branches, one for each slit, there must be two of something there—and that a single-world interpretation has to add an extra postulate to this picture, such as a collapse process which removes one branch. But superposition-as-multiplicity really is just another hypothesis. When you use ordinary probabilities, you are not rationally obligated to believe that every outcome exists somewhere; and an electron wavefunction really may be describing a single object in a single state, rather than a multiplicity of them.
Another wrinkle that is too often overlooked is that superposition is observer dependent.
on a large scale
Which is to say, MWI is what you get if you assume there is a universal state without an observer to observe the state of fix the basis. As it happens, it is possible to reject Universal State AND real collapse.
But we don’t know that qualia aren;t anything and we don’t know that about free will either.
Yep. A morality that leads to the conclusion that we should all work like slaves for a future paradise, the slightest lapse incurring a cost equivalent to untold numbers of dead babies, and the enormity of the task meaning that we shall never experience it ourselves, is prima facie a broken morality.
It is counterintuitive that you should slave for people you don’t know, perhaps because you can’t be sure you are serving their needs effectively. Even if that objection is removed by bringing in an omniscient oracle,there still seems to be a problem because the prospect of one generation slaving to create paradise for another isn’t fair. the simple version of utilitiarianism being addressed here only sums individual utilities, and us blind to things that can only be defined at the group level like justice and equaliy.
Of course it is unworkable for politicians to stick rigidly to their manifestos. It is also unworkable for them to discard their manifestos on day one.
Presumably if you can predict that Candidate A will ruin the economy, then you vote for Candidate B instead.
I can only predict what will happen on the basis that a) their policies will have a certain effect and b) they will actually implement their policies. Which gets back to the original point: if they are not going to do what they say, what is the point of voting?
How is merely stating it to be “mind-killed” supposed to change my mind?
You might care about that sort of thing, you might not. I don’ exactly have a complete knowledge of your psychology.
You’re misinformed.
That’s irrelevant. Wikis open thei doors to all contributors, and then eject those that don’t behave. That’s still an open door policy as opposed to invitation-only.
My comment wasn’t about whether or not RW should cover the Basilisk.
If it should cover the basilisk, why shouldn’t it have contributions from the “malcontents”.
Other mental content is expressible propositionally, whereas to duplicate someone’s qualia you have to literally duplicate their brainstate (or at least the functional equivalent of their brainstate).
To duplicate something, you of course have to duplicate it. That isn’t really the point. What you are tacitly assuming is that qualia cannot be communicated, know or understood without duplication. ie, there is something special about them in that regard. That is how that approach fails as a dissolution. Rather than showing there is nothing special about qualia, it assumes there is something special.
Other mental content is expressible propositionally, whereas to duplicate someone’s qualia you have to literally duplicate their brainstate (or at least the functional equivalent of their brainstate).
I don’t know about yours, but my qualia don’t look like neural activity.
Other mental content is [...] a lot simpler
Is there independent evidence for that?
That was a rather mind-killed comment.Wikis are suppoed to have open doors. RW is supposed to deal with pseudoscience, craziness and the pitfalls of religions. The Bsl*sk is easily all three.
So if they ruin the economy, and I successfully predict that, I smile and collect my winnings?
Eliezer Yudkowsky’s middle name is Hubris.
Note that “should be beholden” is a concept from within an ethical system
Not necessarily. Many approaches to this problem try to lever an ethical “should” off a rational “should”.
If you can;t rely on politicians to do something like what hey said they were going to, what’s the point in voting? ideally, a pl who has a change of heart should stand for re-election.
I was thinking more of people who make boasts that 99% of the audience would consider ridiculous. If they are already low status, the cost is low and they can still get an RoI on the 1%.
MWI adds a privileged basis that is also unnecessary.
MWI adds a universal quantum state that is not , and cannot be, observed.