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

[Michele Simionato]

jjl at pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87oew3or0b.fsf at pobox.com>...
> But it's certainly true that some theories (the Copehagen
> interpretation itself, for example, or the Inquisition's explanation
> of the motions of the Solar System) that people continue to believe in
> are indefensible because they arbitrarily reject the very existence of
> some part of reality that another theory successfully explains.  To
> quote David Deutsch: "A prediction, or any assertion, that cannot be
> defended might still be true, but an explanation that cannot be
> defended is not an explanation".
> 

How does MWI generalize to quantum field theory? If it does not generalize, 
as I will bet it is the case (I would know otherwise) it explain much *less*
than the standard interpretation. Between two theories, one explaining
more and one explaining less, we prefer the one that explains more.
It is as simple as that and it explain why MWI is not popular at all
outside philosophical circles. I will gladly admit that the orthodox
theory is not perfect, but it is the best we have, at least according 
to most physicists. There are always exceptions (Deusch): please do 
mistake the exceptions for the norm.


              Michele Simionato