It was not until later—when I was reading the Feynman Lectures, in fact—that I realized that my father had given me the simple and honest truth. No math = no physics.
You should have listened to him.
EY has done an avowedly very incomplete treatment of QM here with some math. Your comment at the top here doesn't really apply but you're applying it anyway.
It was catchy, but not pithy.
I think that you're saying that the QM is hypocritical 'cause it has no maths, and Luke is saying that the fact that it has some maths might redeem it.
Today's post, Decoherence is Simple was originally published on 06 May 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
The idea that decoherence fails the test of Occam's Razor is wrong as probability theory.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Spooky Action at a Distance, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.