HippasusOfMetapontum

What do you think of the Everett interpretation, and why?

_______________________________________________________

You wrote a Scientific American column against Sam Harris's views on free will and his book Free Will, in which you openly admitted you had not read his book. Would you feel it's fair for others to write columns against your views and books without bothering to read them?

Also, in that column, you falsely said that Sam Harris is "promoting determinism." Why were you so comfortable publishing a column with such a glaring error, that you didn't even bother reading the source material? And why should we trust you or value your opinions when you so wildly misinterpret people's work, without even familiarizing yourself with their material and what they actually say, first?

For reference: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/will-this-post-make-sam-harris-change-his-mind-about-free-will/

"...I'd still argue the biggest advantage is ethics though!"

Specifically what do you see as the ethics advantage of transitioning away from animal products?

What are you working on, next?

What was involved with developing your elite mountain biking skills?

If one were to doubt that a transition away from animal products would mitigate the colossal amount of suffering, what reasoning would you sketch out that it does?