Home Original page

AI and cognitive psychology rant (getting more and more OT - tell me if I should shut up)

John J. Lee jjl at pobox.com
Tue Oct 28 08:02:52 EST 2003 
mis6 at pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes:

> jjl at pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87d6cio0v5.fsf at pobox.com>...
> > <snip obversations about MWI>
> 
> I cannot let pass this thread without some personal observation.
> 
[...snip most of a huge list of arguments from authority...]

> 4. If I ask to virtually every theoretical physicist I know (and I know a
>    lot of physicists) about the MWI, they say "Come on, let's do real Physics".

Well, perhaps the sample consisting of "Physicists Michele Simionato
knows" has *some* merit <wink>, but the single serious survey of
"great and good" Physicists' opinions I have read about (sorry, can't
give reference... but I think it must have been either in one of those
flaky books by Frank Tipler, or in Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality"
that I read about it) revealed that a large majority believed
(essentially -- obviously there are subtleties) in the MWI.  Not sure
when that was carried out either, but it was back when Feynman was
still alive.


> 7. The press has the ability of giving a completely false impressions about
>    what physicists are doing: you find lots of general public books about
[...]

Perhaps, but that has no relevance to the question of the reality of
multiple universes, of course.


> 8. I do like philosophical questioning and I thing it is okay to ask 
>    questions, but still people should be aware of the distinction 
>    between speculations (something smart speculations, something 
>    idiotic speculations) and scientifically relevant questions. 
[...]

Precisely, and IMHO (as well as, if you want argument from authority,
rather cleverer folks, like Deutsch), it's *YOU* that's confused about
that distinction!  This is a hugely important point, so I'm glad it's
that point that you picked out of the detail in this thread.  Science
is about reality, not prediction, and the MWI is a theory, not an
interpretation.

Skipping back a bit:

>   4. there are much more interesting things to study.

Certainly people like Deutsch do get quite pissed off that they have
to spend time defending what should be a done deal by now, taking time
away from more productive and interesting Physics work.  In fact, he
loudly complains about it in his book, and not just wrt MWI: the same
problem occurs in evolutionary theory, for example (and there is
actually an interesting connection between MWI and natural selection).

[...]
> P.S. I really liked the joke about solipsism ;)

But that was *your* joke, Michele!  It's merely your *interpretation*
of the data that I really exist -- in *reality*, I'm just a figment of
your imagination <wink>.

(But I guess it's okay to laugh at your own jokes if you're the
solipsist :-)


> P.P.S. I don't blindly believe the standard interpretation. I think
> it is a "wart" of Physics which will hopefully pass. I look 
[...]

Already has!  :-)


John
More information about the Python-list mailing list