tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25032384.post887970168366924833..comments2012-07-04T13:51:32.370-05:00Comments on The Mentaculus: What Does "Statistical" Mean To You?Andy McKenziehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07314450642021911177noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25032384.post-30380214397927299532011-11-21T07:33:55.498-05:002011-11-21T07:33:55.498-05:00Aaronson himself makes a similar point at the bott...Aaronson himself makes a similar point at the bottom of that entry:<br /><br />"I expect the rebuttal to prove a contrary theorem, using a definition of the word “statistical” that subtly differs from PBRs. I expect the difference between the two definitions to get buried somewhere in the body of the paper.<br /><br />I expect the rebuttal to get blogged and Slashdotted. I expect the Slashdot entry to get hundreds of comments taking strong sides, not one of which will acknowledge that the entire dispute hinges on the two camps’ differing definitions.<br /><br />There’s an important lesson here for mathematicians, theoretical computer scientists, and analytic philosophers. You want the kind of public interest in your work that the physicists enjoy? Then stop being so goddamned precise with words! The taxpayers who fund us—those who pay attention at all, that is—want a riveting show, a grand Einsteinian dispute about what is or isn’t real. Who wants some mathematical spoilsport telling them: “Look, it all depends what you mean by ‘real.’ If you mean, uniquely determined by the complete state of the universe, and if you’re only talking about pure states, then…”"Brian Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05978009573461757644noreply@blogger.com