On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au>wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:47:32PM -0600, Joseph Knight wrote (to Bruno):
> > Could you elaborate on the 323 principle? It sounds like a qualm that I
> > also have had, to an extent, with the MGA and also with Tim Maudlin's
> > argument against supervenience -- the notion of "inertness" or "physical
> > inactivity" seems to be fairly vague.
> I discuss this on page 76 of my book.
> AFAICT, Maudlin's argument only works in a single universe
> setting. What is inert in one universe, is alive and kicking in other
> universes for which the counterfactuals are true.
> So it seems that COMP and single world, deterministic, materialism are
> incompatible, but COMP and many worlds materialism is not (ie
> supervenience across parallel worlds whose histories are compatible
> with our present).
> But then the UDA shows that parallel realities must occur, and
> consciousness must supervene across all consistent histories, and that
> the subjective future is indeterminate.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. (Actually, I have read your book, but I
read it before I really understood the issues at hand so I missed a lot.
It's a good book, especially considering the breadth of topics it
covers!) So you are saying that consciousness supervenes on the goings-on
of other regions of the multiverse?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at