You shouldn't be scared off by those terms! Bayes' Theorem is a formal, mathematical expression of how evidence SHOULD work. It elegantly expresses how new observations should affect our beliefs using probabilities. One thing it also teaches you is that human intuition doesn't work (at all) like Bayes theory. People undervalue their priors and really don't get how much an observation should affect the probability of one theory compared to another; but if you just think of Bayes as "a mathematical answer to the question 'what is evidence'" then it's not all that scary. Psycholinguistics is just the study of how brains process words, which is even simpler. Anyway, the issue I was bringing up is that a lot of philosophical thought DOESN'T advance and grow, and probably the majority of philosophy/philosophers are still batting around the thoughts of old dead guys that were demonstrably ignorant about how the world works. Yes, many of them were geniuses, but they all had to make due with the limited knowledge they had.

Firstly, they need philosophy to interpret QM because science has zero ability (right now, and likely well into the future) to experimentally test which interpretation is correct. All the interpretations lead us to expect exactly what we see when observing/modeling QM, and it's not clear how it's even possible to set up a test that says "if X interpretation is right you'll observe Y instead of Z." This is where philosophy comes in, because it can tell us which interpretation should be favored a priori.

Secondly, the accusation that my promotion of MW is "arguing from emotion" is flat-out offensive. Please, quote a single post of mine where I've argued for MW and explain how I'm "arguing from emotion" rather than "arguing from the available evidence and a priori philosophy" and I'll PayPal you $100.

Thirdly, I don't LIKE MW. I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever; it means nothing to me. If tomorrow there was experimental data that definitively proved Copenhagen was correct I'd shrug and say "cool" and drop MW like a hot potato. I also don't think (and have never said) that MW is the "only possible solution." You're just pulling that one out of your backside.

Here's my non-emotional, philosophical argument for MW in a nutshell: the mathematical models of QM points to MW IF we assume they're modeling real things. The only only only ONLY reason to get around MW is to violate Occam's Razor, or assume the models are modeling something unreal. Now, considering we have not a single reason to do either EXCEPT our historically fallible intuitions, why don't you explain to me philosophically why we should trust our intuitions over our mathematical models. I'll also be waiting for you to explain why anything I've said is an argument from emotion.

1. MW and all other QM interpretations aren't "models," they're "interpretations." QM is already fully and completely modeled and has been since the 20s. Schrodinger's Wave Equation models how particles behave, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principles models our ability to measure how they behave. The debate is over what those models MEAN. The math alone combined with the assumption that the things the math is modeling are real point to MW. The math combined with the assumption of an observer-dependent collapse into a single world combined with the assumption that the things the math is modeling are unreal point to Copenhagen, which leads to it contradicting everything else we know about physics.

2. I've nowhere spoken about any interpretation being "accepted," I always say "favored." One shouldn't be accepted until experiments can definitively distinguish one from another empirically. However, even with the state of evidence we currently have, we should still favor certain interpretations over other. All things being equal (as they are in the case), favor the simpler interpretation that is supported historically and by our current knowledge of physics; not the more complicated interpretation that flouts history and our current knowledge of physics merely to maintain our faulty intuitions.

## Bookmarks