Comments on: The Real Inter-Disciplinary Barrier http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:31:51 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417188 Nick Bostrom Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:47:49 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417188 Matthew, thanks for the wiki link. But, if convenient, could you please provide some direct links (or summary of results) to these negative polls? The wikipedia article reports the following: "A 2005 minor poll on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics workshop at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo produced contrary results, with the MWI as the least favored." But this poll consisted of a sample of 4 (four) researchers. I'm also curious whether there is anybody here who subscribe to MWI "without the slighest degree of doubt about its correctness"? And how can you be sure that the vast majority of participants on this blog subscribe to the MWI? My own probabily would be closer to the mid-way mark than to either 0 or 1, and I have no idea what most of the other people here think about the MWI. Matthew, thanks for the wiki link. But, if convenient, could you please provide some direct links (or summary of results) to these negative polls? The wikipedia article reports the following:

“A 2005 minor poll on the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics workshop at the Institute for Quantum Computing University of Waterloo produced contrary results, with the MWI as the least favored.”

But this poll consisted of a sample of 4 (four) researchers.

I’m also curious whether there is anybody here who subscribe to MWI “without the slighest degree of doubt about its correctness”?

And how can you be sure that the vast majority of participants on this blog subscribe to the MWI? My own probabily would be closer to the mid-way mark than to either 0 or 1, and I have no idea what most of the other people here think about the MWI.

]]> By: Matthew C http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417187 Matthew C Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:02:58 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417187 Interesting. The high-water polls for MWI have been mentioned, but not any of the contrary polls (all listed in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia article on MWI</a>). I would suggest that is not very surprising on a blog where the vast majority of the partipants subscribe to the MWI because it fits best with their beliefs about the nature of reality, some of them without the slightest degree of doubt in its correctness. However when the title and raison d'être of the blog is "overcoming bias", I think we ought to raise the expectations up a notch. Go ahead and mention the contrary polling data -- it will enhance your truth orientation (and credibility to boot!) Interesting. The high-water polls for MWI have been mentioned, but not any of the contrary polls (all listed in the Wikipedia article on MWI). I would suggest that is not very surprising on a blog where the vast majority of the partipants subscribe to the MWI because it fits best with their beliefs about the nature of reality, some of them without the slightest degree of doubt in its correctness.

However when the title and raison d’être of the blog is “overcoming bias”, I think we ought to raise the expectations up a notch. Go ahead and mention the contrary polling data — it will enhance your truth orientation (and credibility to boot!)

]]> By: RobbL http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417186 RobbL Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:23:17 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417186 My two cents on "many worlds". I think that physics today is in about the condition that physics was a hundred years ago. There is a well establshed model that cannot explain certain aspects of reality. It is unclear what to do about this. The only thing that is clear is that something new will probably be needed. To assign high likelyhood (to "believe") in any of several deeper explanations is hardly prudent. In fact the most important thing may be to be contrary :-) My two cents on “many worlds”.

I think that physics today is in about the condition that physics was a hundred years ago. There is a well establshed model that cannot explain certain aspects of reality. It is unclear what to do about this. The only thing that is clear is that something new will probably be needed.

To assign high likelyhood (to “believe”) in any of several deeper explanations is hardly prudent. In fact the most important thing may be to be contrary :-)

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417185 Sebastian Holsclaw Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:01:36 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417185 I think the most interesting question is on how important 'overcoming bias' is. I would rate it as fairly important, but certainly not more important than overcoming laziness or some such. And I suspect that a well governed bias can be a useful time-saving technique that has more positive effects than negative. So I value people like Robin who [mistakenly] think that overcoming bias is the preeminent value because their endeavours may reveal things which when integrated into my own biases are very useful. But the effort to reward ratio in overcoming bias is like many things--subject to marginal returns. I think the most interesting question is on how important ‘overcoming bias’ is. I would rate it as fairly important, but certainly not more important than overcoming laziness or some such. And I suspect that a well governed bias can be a useful time-saving technique that has more positive effects than negative. So I value people like Robin who [mistakenly] think that overcoming bias is the preeminent value because their endeavours may reveal things which when integrated into my own biases are very useful.

But the effort to reward ratio in overcoming bias is like many things–subject to marginal returns.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417184 Robin Hanson Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:32:57 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417184 Zubon, a <a href="http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/06/why_not_predeba.html" rel="nofollow">good question.</a> Zubon, a good question.

]]> By: Zubon http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417183 Zubon Mon, 06 Aug 2007 02:13:23 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417183 Am I odd for thinking that blogs are an odd place to work out this meta-disagreement when physical separation is not an issue? If there are going to be rounds of back-and-forth about what exactly <em>x</em> means, lunch seems like a good time to pin that down; text report-outs can follow. Perhaps there is some value in showing the back-and-forth to the public or in fixing words in text, but I imagine you two will see each other some time in the next week or two. Am I odd for thinking that blogs are an odd place to work out this meta-disagreement when physical separation is not an issue? If there are going to be rounds of back-and-forth about what exactly x means, lunch seems like a good time to pin that down; text report-outs can follow. Perhaps there is some value in showing the back-and-forth to the public or in fixing words in text, but I imagine you two will see each other some time in the next week or two.

]]> By: Nick Bostrom http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417182 Nick Bostrom Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:47:08 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417182 On the MW, one poll is reported here: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html. It is probably a couple of decades old, but my impression is that MW has continued to have the wind in its sails, so I don't think support has declined since then: "Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T]. 1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58% 2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18% 3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13% 4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11% If Robin, based on his own investigations, assigns a probability just slightly higher than the physicist consensus, I don't think this would count as a significant disagreement. On "Probability of uploads within centuries < 1%" and "Probability of 'If your head is cryogenically frozen today, you will be alive in 2100.' < 0.01%", I have to say that these seem astonishingly low. Even if we just use arguments from authority, and even if we discount the most-informed authorities as being self-selected for optimism about these prospects, it is hard to see how we could get estimates that are that low. Would Tyler claim that if we assembled historical data on cases in which a better-informed scientific minority held a view that conflicted with a less-informed scientific majority about what technological feats might be possible a century later, we would find that the minority had been right only in 1/100 to 1/10,000 of the cases? I do think that if we are going to improve the way we deal with disagreements, one important first step is to try to be very careful about how we specify the contested claim. One of the most significant methodological advances in philosophy over the past century or so has been to appreciate the importance of precision of language and care in how we articulate our theses. This methodological insight could probably be more widely applied. Taking a vague disagreement, and, through analysis and distinctions, transforming it into a (set of) precise disagreement(s) can be a major research contribution if done well. On the MW, one poll is reported here: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html. It is probably a couple of decades old, but my impression is that MW has continued to have the wind in its sails, so I don’t think support has declined since then:

“Political scientist” L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the “leading
cosmologists and other quantum field theorists” about the “Many-Worlds
Interpretation” and gives the following response breakdown [T].

1) “Yes, I think MWI is true” 58%
2) “No, I don’t accept MWI” 18%
3) “Maybe it’s true but I’m not yet convinced” 13%
4) “I have no opinion one way or the other” 11%

If Robin, based on his own investigations, assigns a probability just slightly higher than the physicist consensus, I don’t think this would count as a significant disagreement.

On “Probability of uploads within centuries < 1%” and “Probability of ‘If your head is cryogenically frozen today, you will be alive in 2100.’ < 0.01%”, I have to say that these seem astonishingly low. Even if we just use arguments from authority, and even if we discount the most-informed authorities as being self-selected for optimism about these prospects, it is hard to see how we could get estimates that are that low. Would Tyler claim that if we assembled historical data on cases in which a better-informed scientific minority held a view that conflicted with a less-informed scientific majority about what technological feats might be possible a century later, we would find that the minority had been right only in 1/100 to 1/10,000 of the cases?

I do think that if we are going to improve the way we deal with disagreements, one important first step is to try to be very careful about how we specify the contested claim. One of the most significant methodological advances in philosophy over the past century or so has been to appreciate the importance of precision of language and care in how we articulate our theses. This methodological insight could probably be more widely applied. Taking a vague disagreement, and, through analysis and distinctions, transforming it into a (set of) precise disagreement(s) can be a major research contribution if done well.

]]> By: steve http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417181 steve Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:46:36 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417181 Robin's choice of experts on quantum computing as an estimator of p is a good one -- such people are much more likely to have thought about the foundations of qm than average physicists. I posted the list below on the other thread, but it may be of use here. I have been told that Feynman and Gell-Mann would ofted *aggressively* proselytize about many worlds to visitors at Caltech. Some eminent physicists who (as far as I can tell) believe(d) in MW: Feynman, Gell-Mann, Hawking, Steve Weinberg, Bryce DeWitt, David Deutsch, Sidney Coleman ... In fact, I was told that Feynman and Gell-Mann each claim(ed) to have independently invented MW, without any knowledge of Everett! http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/07/many-worlds-brief-guide-for-perplexed.html Robin’s choice of experts on quantum computing as an estimator of p is a good one — such people are much more likely to have thought about the foundations of qm than average physicists.

I posted the list below on the other thread, but it may be of use here. I have been told that Feynman and Gell-Mann would ofted *aggressively* proselytize about many worlds to visitors at Caltech.

Some eminent physicists who (as far as I can tell) believe(d) in MW: Feynman, Gell-Mann, Hawking, Steve Weinberg, Bryce DeWitt, David Deutsch, Sidney Coleman … In fact, I was told that Feynman and Gell-Mann each claim(ed) to have independently invented MW, without any knowledge of Everett!
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/07/many-worlds-brief-guide-for-perplexed.html

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417180 Robin Hanson Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:45:30 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417180 So the main evidence that I am a "logical atomist" is that I want to distinguish the possibility that our differing values lead to our differing priorities on overcoming bias, from the possibility that our differing priorities result from some as yet unstated factual belief related to overcoming bias? Is my interest in the particular distinction I am considering an especially potent evidence of "logical atomism", or is the inclination to draw any distinction whatsoever equally suggestive evidence of such an alarming tendency? So the main evidence that I am a “logical atomist” is that I want to distinguish the possibility that our differing values lead to our differing priorities on overcoming bias, from the possibility that our differing priorities result from some as yet unstated factual belief related to overcoming bias? Is my interest in the particular distinction I am considering an especially potent evidence of “logical atomism”, or is the inclination to draw any distinction whatsoever equally suggestive evidence of such an alarming tendency?

]]> By: Tyler Cowen http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/the-real-inter.html#comment-417179 Tyler Cowen Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:28:04 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2007/08/the-real-inter-disciplinary-barrier.html#comment-417179 Robin is free to tell me that I don't disagree with him on the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don't know much about what the scientific consensus is, but I do believe that such a consensus is my best estimator, given my limited understanding. Robin talks "as if" he has a higher p than the consensus, but of course he is free to announce that he doesn't. Robin juxtaposed these two sentences: "Nerd, I haven't accepted Tyler's label of "logical atomism", and I'm still not even very clear on what it means. Quantum, it is not clear that Tyler and I disagree about any fact regarding overcoming bias; it could just be a preference difference." Again, this is the heart of the matter. And the second sentence shows just how strong Robin's logical atomism is. It reflects Robin's reductionism to call it "just a preference difference." Nerd remains right on target. Robin is free to tell me that I don’t disagree with him on the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know much about what the scientific consensus is, but I do believe that such a consensus is my best estimator, given my limited understanding. Robin talks “as if” he has a higher p than the consensus, but of course he is free to announce that he doesn’t.

Robin juxtaposed these two sentences:

“Nerd, I haven’t accepted Tyler’s label of “logical atomism”, and I’m still not even very clear on what it means.

Quantum, it is not clear that Tyler and I disagree about any fact regarding overcoming bias; it could just be a preference difference.”

Again, this is the heart of the matter. And the second sentence shows just how strong Robin’s logical atomism is. It reflects Robin’s reductionism to call it “just a preference difference.” Nerd remains right on target.

]]>