[pyrois]

I quite liked his introduction! Be aware, however, that he dramatically overstates some things. For example, he claims that the many-worlds interpretation is obviously correct. This is basically wrong: it may be correct, but it certainly isn't obviously correct, and many scientists whose entire research is dedicated to quantum mechanics would disagree that many-worlds is correct at all.

There is a long list of alternative explanations[0], with very little evidence to lend support to or contradict any of them (at least, any of the ones that are still around. Some have fallen by the wayside).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec...

[hawkice]

I think it's fair to say that it's "obvious" when optimizing for the same things Yudkowsky does. For instance, any issue having something to say about the Born rule seems to be his dump stat, if you will. This makes sense, because in the paper where Max Born introduced the rule, he suggests that it indicates only one possible correct interpretation (hint: it was not Many Worlds).

That all being said, no one really disagrees about the predictions of the math, and at least many-worlds has less completely ridiculous misinterpretations by lay-people, so both ends of the spectrum are tolerable to me.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

If you read his apologetics, it's literally faith-based science.